[Event "Nielsen 45 JT"]
[Site "?"]
[Date "2020.05.20"]
[Round "?"]
[White "O. Pervakov & K. Sumbatyan"]
[Black "1st prize"]
[Result "1-0"]
[Annotator "?"]
[SetUp "1"]
[FEN "7N/N7/7P/4n3/2p2k1P/8/7K/8 w - - 0 1"]
[PlyCount "17"]
[EventDate "2020.??.??"]

{An absolute masterpiece. The introduction is pleasant, subtle and eventful
and with a number of likely tries that just fail. But the climax is just
amazing. Black plays for either capturing White's last pawn or for stalemate,
and at the very last move of the study White has the option between stalemate..
. and a sudden mate! Despite Harold van der Heijdens database showing a fair
share of studies with three knights against a queen, I have not been able to
find anything resembling a significant predecessor to this study. The move 8. .
.Kh5!!? might have been the perfect candidate for Ed van de Gevel's recent
Disadvantage of the advantage tourney. Advantage: Stalemate. Disadvantage:
Mate :-) A (cooked) study by Argunov, commendation, Selivanov 30 JT, 1997 
(HHDBV #16702) shows a somewhat comparable mechanism, the thematic move being
3..Ka2 hoping for 4. Rxf1 stalemate, but allowing 5. Ra8+ Kb1 6. Ra1+ winning
the queen (see appendix).} 1. h7 $1 ({Try} 1. Kh3 $2 c3 2. Nb5 c2 3. Nd4 c1=N
$1 {Black underpromotion} 4. Nc6 $5 Ncd3 $1 5. h7 Kf5 6. Ng6 $5 Nf7 $1 $11 (
6... Nxg6 $2 7. Ne7+ $1 $18)) (1. Nc6 $2 Ng4+ 2. Kh3 Nxh6 3. Ng6+ Kf5 $11) 1...
c3 (1... Kf5 2. Kg3 c3 3. Nb5 c2 (3... Kf6 4. Nxc3 Kg7 5. Kf4 $1 Nd3+ 6. Ke3
Ne5 7. Ke4 $18) 4. Nd4+ Kf6 5. Nxc2 Kg7 6. Kf4 $1 Nd3+ 7. Ke3 Ne5 8. Ke4 $18)
2. Nc6 $1 {Sacrifice...} (2. Nb5 $2 c2 3. Nd4 Nf3+ $11) 2... Nf3+ $1 (2... c2
3. Nxe5 $18) 3. Kh3 Ng5+ $1 {...but counter-sacrifice!} 4. hxg5 c2 5. Nd4 $1 ({
Thematic try} 5. Nb4 $2 c1=Q 6. Nd3+ Kxg5 7. Nf7+ Kg6 8. h8=N+ Kh5 $1 9. Nxc1
$11 {Stalemate} (9. Nf4+ $4 Qxf4 $19)) 5... c1=Q 6. Ne2+ Kxg5 7. Nf7+ (7. Nxc1
$2 Kh6 $11) 7... Kg6 8. h8=N+ $1 {Now White underpromotion!} Kh5 $5 9. Ng3# {
Model mate} (9. Nxc1 $2 $11 {Stalemate}) 1-0

[Event "Nielsen 45 JT"]
[Site "?"]
[Date "2020.05.20"]
[Round "?"]
[White "A. Avni & M. Minski"]
[Black "2nd prize"]
[Result "1/2-1/2"]
[Annotator "stjef"]
[SetUp "1"]
[FEN "8/3pk2P/6PP/3P4/QP6/3r1n2/7p/5K2 w - - 0 1"]
[PlyCount "50"]
[EventDate "2020.??.??"]

{While I had no doubt about which study to award first prize, I found it very
difficult to distinguish among the next five studies. Judges with diffirent
tastes would certainly have put them in another order. To gain a draw White
must sacrifice the queen five times. All five sacrifices are accepted. It
sounds like a task study, but infact it plays out with a natural flow. This
study really grew on me. The first time I played it through I found the queen
sacs a bit brutal. But take a look at the initial position. And then try to
convince yourself that 5 queen sacs are needed to gain a draw! One most admire
the technical skill of achieving this from a (fairly) natural starting
position.} 1. Kg2 $1 (1. d6+ $2 Rxd6 $19) (1. h8=Q $2 h1=Q+ 2. Ke2 Rd2+ $19)
1... h1=Q+ $1 2. Kxh1 Rd2 $1 {With the lethal threat 3.. .Rh2#. From now on,
white will have to fight heroically to thwart the fall of his King; no less
than five white queens will be sacrificed in the process!} 3. d6+ $1 Kxd6 (3...
Ke6 $2 4. Qb3+ $18) 4. Qa6+ Ke7 {only move} 5. Qf6+ $1 {first queen sacrifice}
Kxf6 6. h8=Q+ Kg5 7. Qe5+ $1 {second queen sacrifice} (7. Qb8 $2 d6 8. Qxd6
Rxd6 9. h7 Rd1+ 10. Kg2 Nh4+ 11. Kf2 Nxg6 $19) 7... Nxe5 {for a moment black
abandons the mating net, which gives white time to promote yet another queen.}
8. g7 Nf3 (8... Rh2+ $2 9. Kxh2 {simplest} Ng4+ 10. Kh3 Nxh6 11. b5 $18) 9.
g8=Q+ Kh4 10. Qg1 $1 {third queen sacrifice} (10. Qg2 $2 Rd1+ $19 (10... Rxg2
$4 11. Kxg2 $18)) (10. Qb8 $2 Kh3 $1 $19 (10... d6 $2 11. Qd8+ Kg3 12. Qg8+ $11
)) 10... Nxg1 {It is now the turn of the h-pawn to shine.} 11. h7 Nf3 12. h8=Q+
Kg3 {White's troubles are not over yet, as he has to keep an eye on both h2
and d1 squares.} 13. Qg7+ Kf2 14. Qa1 $1 (14. Qg2+ $2 Ke3 $19) 14... Kg3 15.
Qg7+ Kf2 16. Qa1 d5 {Throwing his last trump into the battle.} 17. b5 d4 18.
Qc1 $1 (18. b6 $2 Kg3 $1 $19) 18... Re2 19. b6 Kg3 20. Qc7+ Kf2 21. Qc1 d3 22.
b7 (22. Qc5+ $2 Re3 23. b7 d2 24. Qxe3+ Kxe3 25. b8=Q {White is the first to
promote, but...} d1=Q+ {leads to a forced mate} 26. Kg2 Qc2+ 27. Kh1 Qh7+ 28.
Kg2 Ne1+ 29. Kg3 Qg6+ $19) 22... d2 (22... Re5 23. Qb2+ d2 24. Qxd2+ $1 Nxd2
25. b8=Q $11) 23. Qg1+ $1 {fourth queen sacrifice} Nxg1 24. b8=Q d1=Q (24...
Nf3 {will be met by the same response}) 25. Qg3+ $1 {fifth queen sacrifice}
Kxg3 {stalemate. All five queens' offers were clean, without a capture.}
1/2-1/2

[Event "Nielsen 45 JT"]
[Site "?"]
[Date "2020.05.20"]
[Round "?"]
[White "I. Malyi"]
[Black "3rd prize"]
[Result "1-0"]
[Annotator "?"]
[SetUp "1"]
[FEN "8/4R3/b1PK4/3P1k2/5B2/7n/5p2/8 w - - 0 1"]
[PlyCount "23"]
[EventDate "2020.??.??"]

{6. Be3-d4+!! may at first seem like a simple standard sacrifice, but infact
in it an ingenious device to get on the right side of a future zugzwang
brought about by the switchback 11. Bd4-e3.} 1. Be3 ({Logical try} 1. Bg3 $2
f1=Q 2. Rf7+ Ke4 3. Rxf1 Bxf1 4. c7 Ba6 5. Kc6 Kf5 6. d6 Ke6 7. d7 Bb5+ 8. Kxb5
Kxd7 9. Kb6 Kc8 $11) 1... f1=Q (1... f1=Q 2. Rf7+ Kg4 3. Rxf1) 2. Rf7+ Ke4 3.
Rxf1 Bxf1 4. c7 (4. Kc5 $2 Kxe3 5. c7 (5. d6 Ng5 $1 6. d7 Bh3 $1 7. d8=Q Ne6+
$11) 5... Ba6 6. d6 Bc8 7. Kc6 Nf4 8. d7 Bxd7+ 9. Kxd7 Nd5 $1 10. c8=Q Nb6+ $11
) 4... Ba6 5. Kc6 $1 Ke5 (5... Kf5 6. Kd7 Ke5 7. d6 $18) 6. Bd4+ $3 ({Logical
try} 6. d6 $2 Ke6 7. d7 Bb5+ $1 8. Kxb5 Kxd7 9. Kb6 Kc8 10. Kc6 Ng5 {/ f4/g1/f2
} 11. Bxg5 {stalemate}) 6... Kf5 7. d6 Ke6 8. d7 Bb5+ $1 9. Kxb5 Kxd7 10. Kb6
Kc8 11. Be3 $1 Ng5 {/f4/g1/f2} 12. Bxg5 $18 1-0

[Event "Nielsen 45 JT"]
[Site "?"]
[Date "2020.05.20"]
[Round "?"]
[White "P. Kiryakov & P. Arestov"]
[Black "4th prize"]
[Result "1/2-1/2"]
[Annotator "stjef"]
[SetUp "1"]
[FEN "6K1/8/3N4/5P2/3kp3/8/3r3p/7N w - - 0 1"]
[PlyCount "25"]
[EventDate "2020.??.??"]

{There are plenty of studies featuring White piece sacrifices to secure the
draw of a single f or h pawn against a Black queen. My own favourite is
Timman's tactical study from Brieger MT 2014 Strategems 2014 (HHDBV#840). But
here the theme is doubled (and even quadrupled when including sidelines) in a
most elegant and condensed fashion. To top it all there is a fine logical try
where the White king needs to go to the corner to avoid a future pin along the
seventh rank.} 1. f6 e3 (1... Rd3 2. f7 Rf3 3. f8=Q Rxf8+ 4. Kxf8 e3 5. Nf5+
Kd3 6. Nh4 $1 e2 7. Nf3 $1 Ke3 8. Ne1 Kd2 9. Nf3+ {= positional draw}) 2. f7
Rg2+ 3. Kh8 $3 ({Logical try} 3. Kh7 $2 Rf2 4. Nxf2 exf2 5. Nf5+ Ke5 6. Ng3
f1=Q (6... h1=Q+ 7. Nxh1 f1=Q 8. Nf2 $1 {= see solution}) 7. Nxf1 h1=Q+ 8. Nh2
$1 Qb7 $3 (8... Qxh2+ {=}) 9. Kg8 Qd5 $1 10. Kg7 Qd7 11. Nf3+ Ke6 12. Ng5+ (12.
Nd4+ Qxd4+ {in the solution Queen is on b7 and Qxd4 is not possible}) 12... Kf5
13. Nf3 Qa7 $1) 3... Rf2 4. Nxf2 exf2 5. Nf5+ (5. f8=Q h1=Q+ {+-}) 5... Ke5 6.
Ng3 f1=Q (6... h1=Q+ 7. Nxh1 f1=Q 8. Nf2 $1 {[%eval 32766,0] N sacrifice} Qxf2
9. Kg8 {=} (9. Kg7 {=})) 7. Nxf1 h1=Q+ 8. Nh2 $1 {Sacrifice #2 Position X1
with Kh8} (8. Kg7 Qb7 $1 (8... Qg2+ 9. Ng3 $1 {[%eval 32762,0] = Sacrifice}) 9.
Kg8 Qd5 10. Kg7 Qd7 11. Kg8 Kf6 12. f8=Q+ Kg6) 8... Qa8+ 9. Kg7 Qb7 (9... Qg2+
10. Ng4+ $1 {[%eval 32760,0] = Sacrifice}) (9... Qa7 10. Kg8 Qa2 (10... Qg1+
11. Ng4+ {=}) 11. Kg7 Qa7 (11... Qg2+ 12. Ng4+ {=}) 12. Kg8 {= Positional draw}
) 10. Nf3+ Ke6 (10... Kd6 11. Ng5 $1 {=}) 11. Nd4+ $1 {now Qd7xd4 isnt
possible, unlike in the Logical try} (11. Ng5+ Kf5) 11... Kd6 12. Nf5+ Ke6 13.
Nd4+ {Positional draw.} 1/2-1/2

[Event "Nielsen 45 JT"]
[Site "?"]
[Date "2020.05.20"]
[Round "?"]
[White "M. Minski"]
[Black "5th prize"]
[Result "1/2-1/2"]
[Annotator "?"]
[SetUp "1"]
[FEN "5B1K/2kP2P1/4p3/3b2n1/5qP1/5N2/8/8 w - - 0 1"]
[PlyCount "23"]
[EventDate "2020.??.??"]

{The play in the 5th prize study is fascinating throughout. It is hard to
believe, that White can actually hold a draw with his queen constantly about
to be lost. The middle part of the study is visually very similar to my study
for Sinfonie Schachistiche 2018, 2./3. prize. But infact the play is quite
different, and in the end there is a small logical element, to put the Black
king too far from the action} 1. Bd6+ $1 (1. d8=Q+ $2 Kxd8 2. g8=Q Nf7+ $19) (
1. g8=Q $2 Nf7+ $19) 1... Qxd6 2. g8=Q Nf7+ $1 (2... e5 $2 3. Qc8+ $18) 3. Qxf7
e5 $1 {opens two lines} 4. d8=Q+ $1 (4. Qg7 $2 Bxf3 5. d8=Q+ Kxd8 6. Qg8+ Ke7
$19) (4. Qe8 $2 Qh6#) 4... Kxd8 5. Nxe5 $3 {The point. The white queen is
untouchable thanks to the forks.} Qh6+ (5... Qxe5+ 6. Qg7 Qh2+ 7. Qh7 $11) (
5... Bxf7 $2 6. Nxf7+ $18 {fork}) 6. Kg8 $1 {self-pin} (6. Qh7 $2 Qf8+ $19)
6... Be6 $1 (6... Bxf7+ $2 7. Nxf7+ $18 {fork}) (6... Qd2 7. Nc6+ $1 Bxc6 $11 (
7... Kc8 $2 8. Ne7+ $1 $18 {fork})) 7. g5 $1 (7. Nc6+ $2 Kc8 8. Na7+ Kb8 9.
Nc6+ Ka8 $19) 7... Qh3 $1 (7... Qxg5+ 8. Kf8 Qh6+ (8... Bxf7 9. Nxf7+ $11 {fork
}) 9. Qg7 Qf4+ 10. Nf7+ $11) 8. Nc6+ Kc8 9. Na7+ $1 ({logical try} 9. g6 $2
Bxf7+ 10. gxf7 {position X with bKc8} Qg4+ $1 11. Kh7 (11. Kf8 Kc7 $1 $19)
11... Qf5+ {/Qh5+} 12. Kg7 Qg5+ 13. Kh7 Qf6 14. Ne5 Kd8 $1 15. Nc6+ Kc7 $1 (
15... Kd7 $2 16. Kg8 $1 Qg6+ 17. Kh8 $1 Qxf7 18. Ne5+ $11 {fork}) 16. Ne5 Kd6
$19) 9... Kb8 10. Nc6+ Ka8 11. g6 Bxf7+ 12. gxf7 $11 {position X with bKa8;
The black king is far enough away.} 1/2-1/2

[Event "Nielsen 45 JT"]
[Site "?"]
[Date "2020.05.20"]
[Round "?"]
[White "A. Avni & V. Tarasiuk"]
[Black "6th prize"]
[Result "1/2-1/2"]
[Annotator "?"]
[SetUp "1"]
[FEN "8/2k2p1P/K7/2B1N3/1P3b2/7q/3rp3/4Q3 w - - 0 1"]
[PlyCount "22"]
[EventDate "2020.??.??"]

{A tactical study in classical style with both White and Black playing and
sacrificing. The study has my favourite material of tactical studies: 3 vs 3
pieces. A small weakness of the study – the exchange on a5 – is nicely
camouflaged by a thematic try, The} 1. Bb6+ Kb8 $1 (1... Kd6 $2 2. h8=Q Qxh8 3.
Nxf7+ $18) 2. Nc6+ (2. Nd7+ Rxd7 3. Qxe2 Bc7 $19) 2... Ka8 (2... Kc8 3. Qb1 (3.
Qf2 $11 {with enough counter-play})) 3. Qa1 $1 {after pushing BK to the corner,
white creates a double threat: 4. h8=Q+ and 4.Kb5+} Qd3+ $1 4. b5 Qxh7 5. Qa3
$1 (5. Bd8 $2 {intending 6.Kb6+} Rd1 6. Qa3 (6. Qa2 Be3 7. Qxe2 Ra1+ 8. Ba5 f5
9. b6 Qb7+ $19) 6... Bd6 7. Qa2 Qh3 $1 8. Kb6+ (8. b6 $4 Qd3+) 8... Qa3 $19)
5... Qh6 $1 (5... Bd6 6. Qe3 $1 $11) 6. Qe7 $1 (6. Qf3 $2 e1=N $1 7. Qe4 (7.
Qg4 Qf8 $19) 7... Qe6 {only moves, but sufficient} 8. Qxe6 fxe6 $19) 6... Ra2+
{[#]} 7. Ba5 $1 ({Thematic try:} 7. Na5 $2 Rxa5+ 8. Kxa5 e1=Q+ $1 9. Qxe1 Bd2+
10. Ka6 Qxb6+ $1 (10... Bxe1 $2 $11) 11. Kxb6 Bxe1 $19) 7... Rxa5+ 8. Kxa5
e1=Q+ $1 (8... Bc7+ 9. Ka6 $11) 9. Qxe1 {switchback} Bd2+ 10. Ka6 $1 Bxe1 (
10... Qxc6+ $4 11. bxc6 Bxe1 12. c7 $18) 11. b6 Qxc6 {stalemate} 1/2-1/2

[Event "Nielsen 45 JT"]
[Site "?"]
[Date "2020.05.20"]
[Round "?"]
[White "G. Costeff"]
[Black "Special prize"]
[Result "1-0"]
[Annotator "?"]
[SetUp "1"]
[FEN "4b3/1p4p1/6p1/pP2P1p1/Bp4P1/kP4P1/p3Pp2/K4Nb1 w - - 0 1"]
[PlyCount "19"]
[EventDate "2020.??.??"]

{A study from the realm of chess problems. The position is barely legal and
everything but elegant. But the idea shown is original and ambitious: White,
by capturing a Black pawn, makes sure that Black has an extra tempo to avoid
stalemate at a later point. In fact I am highly curious how anyone could a)
get the idea for this and b) actually make it work in two separate promotion
lines.} 1. e6 b6 (1... Bh2) 2. e3 $3 {White must control d4 - see move 9 in
the 1st main variation.} Bf7 ({2nd main variation:} 2... Bd7 3. exd7 Bh2 4.
d8=Q $1 (4. d8=R Bxg3 5. Re8 Be5+ 6. Rxe5 {stalemate.}) (4. d8=B Bxg3 5. Bf6
Be5+ 6. Bxe5 {stale mate.}) (4. d8=N Bxg3 5. Nc6 Be5+ 6. Nxe5 {stalemate.})
4... Bxg3 5. Qxg5 $1 Be5+ 6. Qxe5 {a black tempo has been created, so white
wins.}) 3. exf7 Bh2 4. f8=N $1 (4. f8=Q Bxg3 5. Qxg7 Be5+ 6. Qxe5 {stalemate.})
(4. f8=R Bxg3 5. Re8 Be5+ 6. Rxe5 {stalemate.}) (4. f8=B Bxg3 5. Bxg7 Be5+ 6.
Bxe5 {stalemate.}) 4... Bxg3 5. Nxg6 $1 Bd6 (5... Bc7 6. Nd2 f1=Q+ 7. Nxf1 Bd8
8. e4 Bf6+ 9. e5 Bxe5+ 10. Nxe5 $1 g6 11. Nc4#) (5... Be5+ 6. Nxe5 $1 {no
stalemate}) 6. Nd2 f1=Q+ 7. Nxf1 Bc5 8. Ne5 $1 {a black tempo has been created}
Bd4+ 9. exd4 {this capture explains why 2.e3!! was necessary} g6 10. Nc4# {
In each of two main variations, all four promotions can stop the threatened
mate, but only the correct promoted piece can reach e5 while creating a black
tempo for stalemate avoidance.} 1-0

[Event "Nielsen 45 JT"]
[Site "?"]
[Date "2020.05.20"]
[Round "?"]
[White "P. Panaiotov"]
[Black "1st honorable mention"]
[Result "1-0"]
[Annotator "?"]
[SetUp "1"]
[FEN "2b5/1k6/8/1p6/P1p5/1P2p1Q1/2qrBPPP/4K2R w K - 0 1"]
[PlyCount "29"]
[EventDate "2020.??.??"]

{The opening position looks like a regular middlegame position (from the
Botvinnik Variation of the Semi Slav Defense perhaps). The highlight of the
study is undoubtedly the move 6. Qh4!!, foreseeing the classical drawing
device 8...Bh3! With the Black king on c3 instead of c4, White now has the
winning plan 10. Kf2 and 11. Ke3, when Blacks king is unable to reach h8 in
time. There is a minor dual with 10. Ke2 that the composer failed to mention.
The 8...Bh3 idea was first shown by Greco in 1621! (hhdbv #85538). For the
next 399 years noone thought of adding a logical refutation of the idea. But
then this study came along.} 1. Bf3+ (1. Qf3+ $2 Kc7 $1 2. Qf4+ Rd6 $1 3. fxe3
cxb3 4. axb5 Qd2+ 5. Kf2 Bg4 $1 6. Rc1+ Qxc1 7. b6+ Kb7 8. Qxd6 Bxe2 9. Kxe2 b2
10. Qe7+ $1 $11) 1... Ka6 2. axb5+ $1 (2. O-O $2 exf2+ 3. Rxf2 Rxf2 4. axb5+
Ka5 5. Qxf2 cxb3 $11) 2... Kxb5 3. O-O $1 (3. Qb8+ $2 Ka5 $1 4. Qc7+ Kb4 5.
Qxc4+ Qxc4 6. bxc4 Rxf2 $11) 3... exf2+ 4. Rxf2 (4. Kh1 $2 Bf5 $11) 4... Rxf2
5. bxc4+ Kxc4 6. Qh4+ $1 (6. Qxf2 $2 Qc1+ 7. Qf1+ Qxf1+ 8. Kxf1 Bh3 9. Kf2 (9.
gxh3 Kd4 10. h4 Ke5 11. h5 Kf6 $11) 9... Bxg2 $11) 6... Kc3 7. Qxf2 $1 Qc1+ 8.
Qf1 Qxf1+ 9. Kxf1 Bh3 10. Kf2 $1 ({or} 10. Ke2) 10... Bxg2 11. Ke3 $1 Bh3 (
11... Bxf3 12. Kxf3 Kd4 13. Kf4 $18) 12. Kf4 $1 Be6 13. h4 Bf7 14. Kg5 Kd4 15.
Bh5 $18 1-0

[Event "Nielsen 45 JT"]
[Site "?"]
[Date "2020.05.20"]
[Round "?"]
[White "J. Mikitovics"]
[Black "2nd honorable mention"]
[Result "1-0"]
[Annotator "?"]
[SetUp "1"]
[FEN "2r2k2/8/1Pn3P1/7p/1p6/R2N2K1/8/8 w - - 0 1"]
[PlyCount "25"]
[EventDate "2020.??.??"]

{I fascinating, but difficult battle. In the natural opening position we have
material equality. White's only advantage seems to lie in the fact that his
pawns are more advanced and that he is on the move. The study is very
difficult (the line with 6...Ne5!? is extremely difficult and certainly
downgrades the study)and not for human solving. There is a bunch of
interesting stuff going on in the sidelines and solvers would be lured into
these blind alleys. Luckily the main point of the study, certainly one of the
most stunning moves of recent years, is of such a nature that other lines move
to the background.} 1. b7 $1 (1. Ra6 $2 Nb8 {/d8=} (1... Rb8 $2 2. Nc5 Kg7 3.
Kh4 Kh6 4. b7 Ne5 5. Re6 $18)) 1... Rb8 2. Ra6 $1 Nd8 $1 (2... Rxb7 3. Nc5 $1
Nb8 4. Rd6 $1 (4. Ra8 $2 {pin} Re7 $1 5. Rxb8+ Kg7 $11) 4... Rb5 5. Ne6+ Ke7 6.
g7 $18) (2... b3 3. Nc5 $18) 3. Nc5 $1 {thr. 4. Sd7+} ({Thematic try with
mutual pins} 3. Kh4 $2 Rxb7 $1 $11 (3... Nxb7 $2 4. Rb6 $1 Rd8 5. Nf4 Rd4 $1 {
pin} 6. Kg5 $1 Nd8 7. Rb8 {pin} Ke7 (7... Rd6 8. Kh6 $1 h4 9. Kh7 Rd7+ 10. Kh8
$1 Ke7 11. g7 Nf7+ 12. Kh7 $18) 8. g7 Kf7 (8... Rxf4 9. g8=N+ $3) 9. Kh6 Rxf4
10. Rxd8 Rg4 11. Rf8+ Ke6 12. Rf4 $3 Rg1 13. Rxb4 Kf7 14. Rf4+ $1 $18 (14. Rb7+
$2 Kf6 15. Kh7 h4 $1 $11))) (3. Ra8 $2 Rxb7 4. Rxd8+ Kg7 5. Nf4 b3 $1 $11 (5...
Kf6 $2 6. Kh4 $1 b3 7. Kxh5 b2 8. Rf8+ Ke5 (8... Ke7 9. Rf7+ $18) 9. Nd3+ $18))
3... Kg7 $1 4. Ra8 $1 Nc6 (4... Nxb7 5. Ne6+ $1 $18 (5. Rxb8 $2 Nxc5 $11)) 5.
Kh4 $1 (5. Ra6 $2 Nd8 6. Ra8 {loss of time}) (5. Kf4 $2 b3 $11) 5... Kh6 (5...
b3 6. Ra6 $3 Nd8 (6... b2 7. Rb6 Kh6 8. Na6 $18) 7. Kg5 b2 8. Rb6 $18) (5...
Kxg6 6. Ra6 $18) 6. Ra6 $1 Nd8 (6... Ne5 7. Re6 $1 Nc4 $1 8. g7+ Kxg7 9. Re7+
$1 (9. Kg5 $2 b3 $1 10. Re7+ Kh8 $3 11. Nxb3 Nd6 $1 $11) 9... Kg8 10. Kxh5 b3
11. Nxb3 Nd6 (11... Kf8 12. Rc7 $1 Nd6 13. Nc5 Ke8 14. Rh7 $3 Nf7 (14... Nxb7
15. Nxb7 Rc8 16. Nd6+ $18) 15. Kg6 $18) 12. Nc5 $1 Nxb7 13. Nd7 $1 Rc8 14. Kg6
$1 Rc6+ 15. Nf6+ $18) 7. Nb3 $3 (7. Ne4 $2 Nxb7 $1 (7... Rxb7 $2 8. Nd6 $18 {
thr. 9.Sf5#}) 8. Ng3 {thr. 9.Sf5#} Nd6 $3 (8... Rf8 $2 9. Nxh5 Rd8 10. g7+ Kh7
11. Ra7 Rb8 12. Kg5 b3 13. Ra6 $1 $18) 9. Rxd6 Rb5 10. Rf6 Kg7 11. Rc6 Kh6 $1
12. Rf6 Kg7 {positional draw}) 7... Nxb7 $1 (7... Rxb7 8. Nd4 {thr. 9.Sf5#} Rf7
9. gxf7+ $18) 8. Nd4 $1 {thr. 9.Sf5#} Rf8 9. g7+ $1 Kxg7 10. Ne6+ Kf7 11. Nxf8
Kxf8 12. Ra8+ Kf7 13. Ra7 $18 {pin [Keywords: mutual pins, switchbacks,
sacrifices, forks]} 1-0

[Event "Nielsen 45 JT"]
[Site "?"]
[Date "2020.05.20"]
[Round "?"]
[White "D. Gurgenidze"]
[Black "3rd honorable mention"]
[Result "1-0"]
[Annotator "?"]
[SetUp "1"]
[FEN "7R/7P/8/6P1/3Kp2N/8/7q/4k3 w - - 0 1"]
[PlyCount "15"]
[EventDate "2020.??.??"]

{The main point of this study is 6. Re1+, a both spectacular and readily
comprehensible blow. Unfortunately the line 4. Qe5 Qh4+ 5. Ke3 Qh3+ 6. Kd2 Qh4
is incomprehensible to humans, or at least to the judge.} 1. Nf3+ exf3 2. Re8+
Kf1 (2... Kf2 3. h8=Q Qd6+ 4. Ke4 Qc6+ 5. Kf5 $18) 3. h8=Q f2 (3... Qd2+ 4. Kc4
Qa2+ 5. Kc5 Qc2+ 6. Kd5 Qd3+ 7. Qd4 Qb5+ 8. Ke4 Qxe8+ 9. Kxf3 Qe2+ 10. Kf4 $18)
4. Qf6 $3 (4. g6 $2 Qg2 5. g7 Qxg7+ 6. Qxg7) (4. Qe5 $2 Qh4+ 5. Qe4 (5. Ke3
Qh3+ 6. Kd2 Qh4 7. Qb5+ Kg2 $11) 5... Qxg5 $11) 4... Qh4+ 5. Kc3 (5. Kd3 $2
Qh7+ 6. Re4 Kg1 $11) 5... Qxg5 $1 6. Re1+ $3 (6. Qxg5 {stalemate}) 6... Kxe1 7.
Qxg5 f1=Q 8. Qd2# 1-0

[Event "Nielsen 45 JT"]
[Site "?"]
[Date "2020.05.20"]
[Round "?"]
[White "S. Didukh"]
[Black "4th honorable mention"]
[Result "1/2-1/2"]
[Annotator "?"]
[SetUp "1"]
[FEN "8/2b3pk/2q5/7N/3Brp1P/8/R4PK1/7Q w - - 0 1"]
[PlyCount "17"]
[EventDate "2020.??.??"]

{This tactical study shows clear logic with 3. Ra6 instead of 3. h5. A study
suitable for solving. White is a piece up but not for long.} 1. Qb1 $1 (1. f3
$2 Qg6+ 2. Kh2 Rxd4 $19 {the knight is trapped.}) (1. Kh2 $2 f3+ 2. Ng3 Rxh4+)
1... Qg6+ 2. Ng3 $1 (2. Kf1 $2 Rxd4 3. Qxg6+ Kxg6 4. Ra7 f3 $1 5. Rxc7 Rd1#)
2... fxg3 3. Ra6 $1 ({Logical try} 3. h5 $2 Qf5 4. Re2 gxf2 5. Rxe4 f1=Q+ 6.
Qxf1 Qxe4+ 7. Qf3 Qxd4 8. Qf5+ Kg8 9. Qe6+ Kf8 $19) 3... Qf5 4. Re6 $1 (4. f3
$2 Re2+) 4... gxf2 (4... Qxe6 5. f3 $11 {pins the rook.}) (4... Be5 5. Rxe5
Rxe5 6. Qxf5+ Rxf5 7. fxg3 $11) 5. Rxe4 f1=Q+ 6. Qxf1 Qxe4+ 7. Qf3 Qxd4 8. Qh5+
$1 {- h5 is not blocked by pawn.} Kg8 9. Qe8+ {perpetual check.} 1/2-1/2

[Event "Nielsen 45 JT"]
[Site "?"]
[Date "2020.05.20"]
[Round "?"]
[White "G.S.T. Østmoe"]
[Black "5th honorable mention"]
[Result "1-0"]
[Annotator "?"]
[SetUp "1"]
[FEN "7k/p1p4N/3p1P1K/8/2P1P2b/3P4/2R2p2/3n4 w - - 0 1"]
[PlyCount "33"]
[EventDate "2020.??.??"]

{A study of a few interesting moments. Unfortunately the most interesting of
these occur allready on the second move. Somehow I feel this great shot is
wasted on the follow up. The rest of the study is fairly interesting with many
precise moves, but still I lack a little something to round it off. Most of
all I feel that 2. Nf8!! is more suited as a decisive move of a study and not
as an introductory device.} 1. f7 Be7 2. Nf8 $3 (2. Rxf2 $2 Nxf2 3. f8=Q+ Bxf8+
4. Nxf8 {is better for Black.}) 2... Bxf8+ (2... f1=Q 3. Ng6#) 3. Kg6 Bh6 $1 {
Umnov.} (3... f1=Q 4. Rh2+) (3... f1=N 4. Rg2 {(simplest) and there is no
defense against Rg5-h5.}) 4. Rxf2 $1 (4. Kxh6 $4 f1=Q {wins.}) 4... Nxf2 5.
Kxh6 Ng4+ 6. Kg6 Ne5+ 7. Kf6 Kh7 $1 (7... Nxf7 8. Kxf7 a5 9. d4 a4 10. e5 dxe5
11. dxe5 a3 12. e6 a2 13. e7 a1=Q 14. e8=Q+ Kh7 15. Qg8+ ({or} 15. Qe4+) 15...
Kh6 16. Qg6#) 8. d4 $1 (8. f8=Q $2 Nd7+ 9. Ke7 Nxf8 10. Kxf8 a5 {and now Black
wins because White does not queen with check.}) 8... Ng6 9. c5 $1 (9. e5 $2
dxe5 10. dxe5 Nxe5 $1 11. Kxe5 (11. f8=Q $4 Nd7+) 11... Kg7 {draws.}) 9... a5 (
9... dxc5 10. e5 $1 {wins.}) 10. e5 dxe5 11. d5 $1 (11. dxe5 $2 Nxe5 $1 {draws.
}) 11... Nf8 $1 (11... a4 12. d6 cxd6 13. c6 $1 {wins.}) 12. c6 $1 (12. d6 $2
c6 $1 {draws.}) 12... e4 13. d6 e3 14. dxc7 e2 15. c8=Q e1=Q 16. Qh3+ Qh4+ 17.
Qxh4# 1-0

[Event "Nielsen 45 JT"]
[Site "?"]
[Date "2020.05.20"]
[Round "?"]
[White "M. Hlinka & L. Kekely"]
[Black "6th honorable mention"]
[Result "1/2-1/2"]
[Annotator "?"]
[SetUp "1"]
[FEN "8/8/3p3b/3R4/1p6/1kN4B/2r5/K7 w - - 0 1"]
[PlyCount "26"]
[EventDate "2020.??.??"]

{A very elegant study leading to a double pin model stalemate. The try 3. Rd4+
adds significantly to the study, allthough it still appears somewhat
mechanical.} 1. Be6 $1 Rc1+ (1... Kxc3 2. Rxd6 Bg7 3. Kb1 Rb2+ 4. Kc1 $11) (
1... Rxc3 2. Rd2+ Ka4 3. Rxd6 Bg7 4. Kb1 $11) 2. Nb1 Bg7+ 3. Re5+ $1 ({them.
try} 3. Rd4+ $2 Ka4 $1 (3... Kc2 $2 4. Bb3+ $1 Kxb3 {stalemate}) (3... d5 4.
Bxd5+ Ka4 5. Kb2 $1 Rc8 6. Nc3+ $1 Rxc3 7. Rd2 $11) 4. Bb3+ Kb5 $19) 3... Kc2
4. Bf5+ (4. Bb3+ $2 Kd3 $19) 4... Kd1 5. Bg4+ Kc2 6. Bf5+ {swithcback} Kb3 7.
Be6+ {switchback} d5 $1 (7... Ka4 8. Bb3+ $1 Kxb3 {stalemate}) 8. Bxd5+ Kc2 9.
Be4+ Kd1 10. Bf3+ Kc2 11. Be4+ {switchback} Kb3 12. Bd5+ {switchback} Ka4 13.
Bb3+ $1 Kxb3 {stalemate. Meredith. Battery. Switchbacks. Double pin stalemates.
} 1/2-1/2

[Event "Nielsen 45 JT"]
[Site "?"]
[Date "2020.05.20"]
[Round "?"]
[White "J. Timman"]
[Black "Special honorable mention"]
[Result "1-0"]
[Annotator "stjef"]
[SetUp "1"]
[FEN "8/PPP1P3/2R1pR2/p6Q/1pP1P1P1/2bBp1P1/1r4k1/K7 w - - 0 1"]
[PlyCount "29"]
[EventDate "2020.??.??"]

{A classic case of White sacrificing the main part of his army to deal with a
Black threat of perpetual. Compared to the 2nd prize draw study, the mass
sacrifice is done in a far less natural position. The first time I played
through the solution it appeared a little mechanical or even childish... But
there are plenty of delicacies, when delving into the mechanics. I appreciate,
for instance, how both long diagonals are cleared by a total of four pieces to
make the final mate appear. Black also gets to play with the defensive
ressource 3...e5. In the end the mating move falls on the square occupied
initially by the Black king. The scheme with WKa1, Brb2 and Bc3 and queen
sacrifices on h8 also features in a study by Gurgenidze (commendation,
Chervoni Girnik 1978, HHDBV #36128), but this study is far more ambitious.} 1.
Bf1+ (1. Rf2+ exf2 2. Bf1+ Kxf1 $11) 1... Kg1 2. Rf2 $3 exf2 (2... Rxf2+ 3. Kb1
b3 4. Bd3 Ra2 5. Kc1 (5. Qxa5 $18) 5... e2 6. Qc5+ Kg2 7. Qe3 $18) 3. Qh8 $1 e5
(3... Bxh8 4. c8=Q $1 Bc3 5. Qh8 $1 Bxh8 6. e5 Bxe5 7. Rxe6 Bc3 8. Re3 Bd4 9.
Rd3 Bg7 10. e8=N $1 Bh8 11. g5 $18) 4. Qxe5 Bxe5 5. e8=Q Bc3 6. Qh8 $1 Bxh8 7.
c8=Q Bc3 8. Qh8 $1 Bxh8 9. e5 Bxe5 10. b8=Q Bc3 11. Qh8 $1 Bxh8 12. Rh6 Bc3 13.
Rh1+ $1 Kxh1 14. a8=Q+ Kg1 15. Qg2# {A tale of two long diagonals} 1-0

[Event "Nielsen 45 JT"]
[Site "?"]
[Date "2020.05.20"]
[Round "?"]
[White "M. Gromov & O. Pervakov"]
[Black "1st commendation"]
[Result "1-0"]
[Annotator "?"]
[SetUp "1"]
[FEN "8/N3q2p/p3N3/1P1P3P/8/4k1K1/1P6/4B3 w - - 0 1"]
[PlyCount "33"]
[EventDate "2020.??.??"]

{This study shows a sudden mutual zugzwang with the material NNB vs Q plus two
pawns a side. I am not sure I find this domination exciting enough.} 1. Bf2+ (
1. Nc8 $2 Qf7 $11) (1. Nc6 $2 Qd6+ 2. Kg4 Qxd5 3. Ncd4 axb5 $11) 1... Ke4 (1...
Ke2 2. Nc6 Qf6 3. Nf4+ $18) 2. Nc8 $1 {Beginnig domination over queen} (2. Nc6
$2 Qd6+ 3. Kg4 Kxd5 4. Ncd4 axb5 $11) 2... Qf6 $1 (2... Qb4 3. Nc5+ Kf5 (3...
Kxd5 4. Nb6+ Kd6 5. bxa6 Qxb6 6. Ne4+) 4. Nd6+ Kg5 5. Nde4+ Kxh5 6. bxa6 $18)
3. Nd6+ Kxd5 4. Nc7+ $1 Ke5 (4... Kxd6 5. Ne8+) 5. Kg2 $1 (5. bxa6 $2 Qg7+ 6.
Kh2 Qxc7 7. a7 Qc6 $11) 5... axb5 6. Be1 $1 ({Thematic try} 6. b4 $2 h6 $1 {
zz Mutual zugzwang} 7. Be1 Qf8 $1 8. Bg3+ Kf6 $1 9. Bh4+ Ke5 $1 10. Bg3+ Kf6
$11 {Positional draw}) (6. b3 $2 b4 $1 $11) 6... b4 (6... Qf8 7. Bc3+ Kxd6 8.
Bb4+ $18) 7. Bf2 $1 {zz Sudden mutual zugzwang in rare material!} Qf8 $1 {
The best chance} (7... b3 8. Be1 $1 Qg5+ (8... Qg7+ 9. Bg3+) 9. Bg3+ Kd4 (9...
Kf6 10. Ne4+) 10. Ne6+) (7... h6 8. b3 $1 {zz Mutual zugzwang} Qf8 9. Bd4+ Kxd6
10. Bc5+ Kxc5 11. Ne6+) (7... Qe7 8. Bg3+ Kd4 9. Nf5+) 8. Bd4+ $1 (8. Bg3+ $2
Kf6 $1 9. Bh4+ Ke5 $11) 8... Kxd6 (8... Kxd4 9. Ne6+) 9. Bc5+ $1 Kxc5 10. Ne6+
Kc4 11. Nxf8 Kb3 12. Nxh7 Kxb2 13. Nf6 b3 14. Nd5 $1 (14. Nd7 $2 Ka1 $1 15. Nc5
b2 16. Nb3+ Kb1 $11) (14. Ne4 $2 Kc2 15. Nd6 Kc3 $1 16. Nb5+ Kb4 $11) 14... Kc2
15. Nb6 $1 (15. Ne3+ $2 Kd3 $1 $11) 15... b2 16. Nc4 b1=Q 17. Na3+ 1-0


[Event "Nielsen 45 JT"]
[Site "?"]
[Date "2020.05.20"]
[Round "?"]
[White "A Stavrietsky"]
[Black "2nd commendation"]
[Result "1-0"]
[Annotator "stjef"]
[SetUp "1"]
[FEN "8/1q3ppp/4p3/k4P1P/3P4/2P1pp2/5r2/2R1K1Q1 w - - 0 1"]
[PlyCount "15"]
[EventDate "2020.??.??"]

{The move 5. Qg6+ is excellent and so is Black's counterplay with 2...Rb2. The
motionless Qb7 is unfortunate.} 1. Ra1+ Kb6 2. Rb1+ Rb2 3. Rxb2+ Kc6 4. d5+ (4.
Rxb7 $2 {Thematic try} f2+ 5. Qxf2 exf2+ 6. Kxf2 Kxb7 7. fxe6 fxe6) 4... exd5
5. Qg6+ fxg6 {(A)} (5... hxg6 {(B)} 6. Rxb7 Kxb7 7. f6 gxf6 8. h6 {+-}) 6. Rxb7
Kxb7 7. h6 gxh6 8. f6 {+-} 1-0

[Event "Nielsen 45 JT"]
[Site "?"]
[Date "2020.05.20"]
[Round "?"]
[White "P. Arestov & D. Keith"]
[Black "3rd commendation"]
[Result "1-0"]
[Annotator "stjef"]
[SetUp "1"]
[FEN "k7/8/3P3q/4R3/4K3/n4NP1/8/7B w - - 0 1"]
[PlyCount "39"]
[EventDate "2020.??.??"]

{A two phase study with a nice tactical point in the first part (square
vacation sacrifice). In the second part we have a long precise battle of
knight + pawns vs knight. This is of a more technical/precise nature. While I
think this would be a fine miniature, I don't think the two parts of the study
mix well.} 1. d7 Qh7+ 2. Kf4 $1 (2. Ke3 $2 Qxd7 3. Ra5+ Kb8 4. Ra8+ Kxa8 5.
Ne5+ Qb7 $1 6. Bxb7+ Kxb7 7. g4 Kc7 8. g5 Nb5 $10) 2... Qxd7 {pos.X with wRe5,
no 3. Ne5+??} 3. Ra5+ $1 (3. Nd4+ $2 Kb8 $10) 3... Kb8 4. Ra8+ Kxa8 {pos.X1
without wRe5} 5. Ne5+ Qb7 6. Bxb7+ Kxb7 7. g4 Kc7 (7... Nb5 8. g5 {transposes})
8. g5 Nb5 9. g6 (9. Kf5 $2 Nd4+ 10. Kf6 Kd6 11. g6 Ne6 $10) 9... Nd4 10. Nc4 $1
(10. Ke4 $2 Ne6 11. Kf5 Kd6 $10) (10. Ng4 $2 Kd6 $1 $10 (10... Kd7 $2 11. Ke5
$18)) 10... Kd7 (10... Ne6+ 11. Ke5 Kd7 12. Nb6+ $18 {transposes}) 11. Ke5 Ne6
12. Nb6+ $1 (12. Nd6 $2 Ng7 13. Kf6 Ne6 {/Nh5+=}) 12... Ke7 13. Nd5+ Kd7 14.
Nf4 (14. Kf6 $2 Kd6 $10) 14... Ng7 15. Kf6 Ne8+ 16. Kf7 Nd6+ 17. Kg7 $1 (17.
Kf8 $2 Nf5 18. Kf7 Ne7 {/Nh5=}) 17... Ke7 $1 (17... Nf5+ 18. Kf6 Nd6 19. Nd5
Ne8+ 20. Kf7 Kd8 21. Nf6 $18) 18. Nd5+ Ke6 19. Kh7 $1 (19. Kf8 $2 Nf5 20. Ne3
Kf6 $10) (19. Kh8 $2 Ne8 $10) 19... Ne8 (19... Nf5 20. Ne3 $1 $18) 20. Nc7+ $1
1-0


[Event "Nielsen 45 JT"]
[Site "?"]
[Date "2020.05.20"]
[Round "?"]
[White "B. Djuraševic"]
[Black "4th commendation"]
[Result "1/2-1/2"]
[Annotator "stjef"]
[SetUp "1"]
[FEN "3K3n/3P2pq/k6p/4P3/4P3/7R/8/8 w - - 0 1"]
[PlyCount "27"]
[EventDate "2020.??.??"]

{The idea of 7. e5 is pleasant and clear: To vacate the e4 square for the
future arrival of the White king. Such a device has been shown in a number of
studies, and I am not sure this particular study adds much new to this tale.
Furthermore, the position before 10. e7 (shifted one rank) is already known
from van Reek 1995 (HHDBV #18918).} 1. Kc7 $1 (1. Kc8 $2 Nf7 2. e6 Qg8+ $19)
1... g5 $1 (1... Nf7 2. e6 Qg6 3. exf7 Qxf7 4. Rc3 $1 Kb5 5. Rc6 $1 $11) 2. e6
$1 (2. Rxh6+ $2 {Too early.} Qxh6 3. d8=Q Qb6+ 4. Kd7 Qxd8+ 5. Kxd8 Nf7+ $19)
2... Qe7 $1 (2... Ng6 3. Ra3+ $1 Kb5 4. Kc8 Ne7+ 5. Kc7 Nc6 6. Rb3+ Kc4 7. Kxc6
Qxe4+ 8. Kd6 Qd4+ 9. Ke7 $1 $11) 3. Rxh6 $1 Qc5+ (3... g4 4. Rxh8 $11) 4. Kd8 (
4. Kb8 $2 Qb6+ 5. Kc8 Ka7 $19) 4... Qf8+ 5. Kc7 Qxh6 6. d8=Q Qh2+ $1 7. e5 $3 (
{Thematic try:} 7. Qd6+ $2 Qxd6+ 8. Kxd6 Ng6 9. e7 Nxe7 10. Ke5 Kb5 11. Kd4
Nc6+ $19) (7. Kd7 $2 Qd2+ $1 8. Ke8 Qxd8+ 9. Kxd8 Ng6 10. e7 Nxe7 11. Kxe7 g4
12. e5 g3 13. e6 g2 $19) 7... Qxe5+ (7... Qc2+ 8. Kd7 Qd3+ 9. Ke8 Qxd8+ 10.
Kxd8 Ng6 11. e7 Nxe7 12. Kxe7 g4 13. e6 g3 14. Kd8 $11) 8. Qd6+ Qxd6+ 9. Kxd6
Ng6 10. e7 $3 Nxe7 11. Ke5 $1 Kb5 12. Ke4 {now e4 is empty!} Kc5 13. Kf3 Kd5
14. Kg4 $11 1/2-1/2

[Event ".c Selivanov-30 JT @3"]
[Site "?"]
[Date "1997.??.??"]
[Round "?"]
[White "Argunov=N"]
[Black "(+0040.12c5b2)"]
[Result "1-0"]
[Annotator "?"]
[SetUp "1"]
[FEN "8/5P2/5B2/b1K5/8/2p5/1k3p2/8 w - - 0 1"]
[PlyCount "11"]
[EventDate "1997.??.??"]

{EG#@3596. î3: Campioli=M EG=149 7/2003.} 1. f8=R $1 (1. f8=Q $2 Bb4+ 2. Kxb4
f1=Q 3. Bxc3+ Ka2 4. Qa8+ Kb1 5. Qa1+ Kc2 6. Qxf1) 1... Bb4+ (1... f1=Q $1 {
<cook MC>}) (1... Ka1 $1 {<cook MC>}) 2. Kxb4 f1=Q 3. Bxc3+ Ka2 $1 4. Ra8+ (4.
Rxf1 $2) 4... Kb1 5. Ra1+ $1 Kc2 6. Rxf1 1-0

[Event "3.p Brieger MT StrateGems"]
[Site "?"]
[Date "2014.??.??"]
[Round "?"]
[White "Timman=J"]
[Black "(=0471.22g8f2)"]
[Result "1/2-1/2"]
[SetUp "1"]
[FEN "1R4K1/8/b1N4r/B3p2P/1P6/2p5/5k2/b7 w - - 0 1"]
[PlyCount "19"]
[EventDate "2014.??.??"]

{StrateGems/7-9 EG#20193.} 1. b5 Bxb5 (1... c2 2. Bd2) 2. Nxe5 $1 (2. Rxb5 $2 Rxc6)
2... Bc4+ (2... Be2 3. Rc8 c2 4. Rxc2 Bxe5 5. Bc3) 3. Nxc4 Rh8+ 4. Kxh8 c2+ 5.
Rb2 $1 (5. Kh7 $2 c1=Q 6. Nd6 Qc2+) 5... Bxb2+ 6. Nxb2 Ke2 7. Nd3 $1 (7. Bd2 $2
Kxd2 8. Nd3 Kxd3 9. h6 c1=Q 10. h7 Ke4 $1) 7... Kxd3 8. Bd2 Kxd2 9. h6 c1=Q 10.
h7 1/2-1/2



[Event "Polish Chess Federation ty#622"]
[Site "?"]
[Date "2015.04.28"]
[Round "?"]
[White "Tarasiuk=V"]
[Black "(=0532.04e8c5)"]
[Result "1/2-1/2"]
[Annotator "?"]
[SetUp "1"]
[FEN "4K3/8/6RR/2kr2N1/3b1N2/6pp/3pp3/8 w - - 0 1"]
[PlyCount "37"]
[EventDate "2015.??.??"]

1. Ne4+ Kb5 $1 (1... Kb4 2. Nxd5+) 2. Nxe2 Re5+ 3. Kf7 $1 (3. Kf8 $2 Rxe4 4.
Nxd4+ Rxd4 5. Rg5+ Kc4 6. Rc6+ Kd3 7. Rxg3+ Ke2 8. Rc2 h2 9. Rh3 Rf4+ $1 (9...
Ke1 $2 10. Rxh2 Rf4+ 11. Ke8 $1 d1=Q 12. Rh1+ Rf1 13. Rhh2 $1 Rg1 14. Ke7 $1
Rg7+ 15. Kf8 Rg1 16. Ke7 Rf1 17. Ke8) 10. Kg7 Rf2 11. Ra2 Ke1 12. Re3+ Re2)
3... Rxe4 4. Nxd4+ Rxd4 5. Rg5+ Kc4 (5... Ka4 6. Ra6+ Kb4 7. Rb6+ Kc4 8. Rc6+)
6. Rc6+ Kd3 7. Rxg3+ Ke2 8. Rc2 $1 (8. Rg1 $2 d1=Q) 8... h2 (8... Rd3 9. Rg1)
9. Rh3 Ke1 $1 (9... Rf4+ 10. Kg6 $1 Rf2 11. Ra2 Ke1 12. Re3+ Re2 13. Rd3 $1)
10. Rxh2 Rf4+ 11. Ke8 $1 (11. Ke7 $2 d1=Q 12. Rh1+ Rf1 13. Rhh2 Rg1 14. Ke8
Rg8+ $1) (11. Ke6 $2 d1=Q 12. Rh1+ Rf1 13. Rhh2 Qg4+) 11... d1=Q 12. Rh1+ Rf1
13. Rhh2 Rg1 $1 14. Ke7 $1 Rg7+ 15. Kf8 Rg1 16. Ke7 (16. Ke8 $2 Rg8+ $1) 16...
Rf1 17. Ke8 $1 Qa1 18. Rhe2+ Kd1 19. Red2+ (19. Rcd2+ $2 Kc1 20. Rc2+ Kb1)
1/2-1/2

[Event "Schach Echo#054"]
[Site "?"]
[Date "1970.??.??"]
[Round "?"]
[White "Hildebrand=A Belokon=S"]
[Black "(+4001.01e4a8)"]
[Result "1-0"]
[Annotator "?"]
[SetUp "1"]
[FEN "k7/8/2N5/4p3/4K3/8/1q4Q1/8 w - - 0 1"]
[PlyCount "19"]
[EventDate "1970.??.??"]

{Schach Echo/3} 1. Qg8+ (1. Qxb2 $2) 1... Kb7 2. Qb8+ Ka6 3. Qa7+ (3. Qxb2 $2)
3... Kb5 4. Qb7+ Ka4 5. Qa6+ (5. Qxb2 $2) 5... Kb3 6. Na5+ Kc3 (6... Kc2 {
<main>} 7. Qd3+ Kc1 8. Nb3+ Qxb3 9. Qxb3) 7. Qc6+ Kb4 8. Qb6+ Kc3 9. Qc5+ Kd2
10. Nc4+ 1-0

[Event "1.p Tbilisi ty"]
[Site "?"]
[Date "1975.??.??"]
[Round "?"]
[White "Gurgenidze=D"]
[Black "(=0500.02d6d1)"]
[Result "1/2-1/2"]
[SetUp "1"]
[FEN "8/8/3K4/8/8/pR6/1r2pR2/3k4 w - - 0 1"]
[PlyCount "17"]
[EventDate "1975.??.??"]

{EG#03042.} 1. Rxa3 (1. Rxe2 $2 Rxb3 $1 2. Ra2 Kc1 3. Kc5 Kb1 4. Rh2 a2) (1.
Rd3+ $2 Rd2) (1. Rh3 $2 e1=Q) 1... Rd2+ (1... e1=Q 2. Ra1+) 2. Kc7 $1 (2. Kc6
$2 Rc2+ 3. Kd7 (3. Kd5 e1=Q 4. Ra1+ Rc1 5. Raa2 Qh1+) (3. Kd6 e1=Q 4. Ra1+ Rc1
5. Raa2 Qb4+) 3... e1=Q 4. Ra1+ Rc1 5. Raa2 Rb1 6. Kd8 (6. Rg2 Qe3) (6. Rh2 Qe4
) 6... Rb8+ 7. Kc7 Qe5+) 2... Rc2+ 3. Kd8 $1 e1=Q 4. Ra1+ Rc1 5. Raa2 $1 Rb1 6.
Kd7 $1 Rb7+ (6... Rc1 7. Kd8) (6... Kc1 7. Rac2+ Kd1 8. Ra2) 7. Kc8 $1 Rb1 (
7... Ra7 8. Rxa7 Qxf2 9. Ra1+ Ke2 10. Ra2+) 8. Kd7 $1 Rc1 9. Kd8 $1 1/2-1/2

[Event "Svobodn� Slovo"]
[Site "?"]
[Date "1956.??.??"]
[Round "?"]
[White "Sindler=I"]
[Black "(+3110.30h8c7)"]
[Result "1-0"]
[SetUp "1"]
[FEN "7K/RPk5/2P5/3P4/5q2/8/6B1/8 w - - 0 1"]
[PlyCount "7"]
[EventDate "1956.??.??"]

{13.p Bohemian Ring ty 1955-1956.} 1. d6+ $1 Qxd6 2. b8=Q+ $1 Kxb8 3. c7+ $1 Qxc7 (3...
Kxa7 {<main>} 4. c8=N+ Kb8 5. Nxd6) 4. Ra8# 1-0

[Event ".c Chervoni Girnik (c)"]
[Site "?"]
[Date "1978.??.??"]
[Round "?"]
[White "Gurgenidze=D"]
[Black "(+1331.81a1g2)"]
[Result "1-0"]
[SetUp "1"]
[FEN "Q7/P1PP4/2PP4/1p6/3b4/P4PP1/1r4k1/K6N w - - 0 1"]
[PlyCount "15"]
[EventDate "1978.??.??"]

1. Qh8 Bxh8 2. d8=Q Bc3 3. Qh8 Bxh8 4. c8=Q Bc3 5. Qh3+ Kg1 6. Qh8 Bxh8 7. a8=Q
Bd4 8. Qa7 1-0

[Event "Sinfonie Schacchistiche"]
[Site "?"]
[Date "2018.04.08"]
[Round "?"]
[White "Nielsen=S"]
[Black "2nd/3rd prize"]
[Result "1/2-1/2"]
[Annotator "?"]
[SetUp "1"]
[FEN "3q2b1/b2N1k2/7K/3P4/4p3/8/6P1/1Q2N3 w - - 0 1"]
[PlyCount "31"]
[EventDate "2018.??.??"]

{[#]} 1. Nf3 $1 (1. Ne5+ $2 Kf6 2. Qxe4 Qf8+ 3. Kh5 Qe8+ 4. Qg6+ Qxg6+ 5. Nxg6
Bf7 6. Kg4 Bxg6 $19 {EGTB}) (1. Qxe4 $2 Be3+ (1... Qxd7 2. Nf3 Qd6+ 3. Kh5) 2.
Qxe3 Qh4#) 1... exf3 (1... Be3+ 2. Kh5) (1... Qxd7 2. Ne5+) 2. Qg6+ (2. Qf5+
Ke7) 2... Ke7 3. gxf3 (3. Ne5) (3. Kg7) (3. Qg7+) 3... Be3+ (3... Kxd7 4. Qg7+
$11) (3... Qxd7 4. Qxg8 $11) 4. f4 (4. Kg7 $2 Bxd5 (4... Bd4+)) 4... Bxf4+ (
4... Kxd7 5. Qg7+ Qe7 (5... Kc8 6. Qc3+) 6. Qg4+ $1 (6. Qxg8 $2 Qh4+ $19) 6...
Kc7 7. Qxg8 $11) 5. Kg7 Be5+ $1 (5... Bxd5 6. Qf6+ Kxd7 7. Qxf4 (7. Qf5+)) (
5... Qxd7) 6. Nxe5 (6. Kh6 Qxd7 (6... Kxd7)) 6... Qf8+ 7. Kh8 Be6+ (7... Bf7+
8. Kh7 Bxg6+ 9. Nxg6+ $11) 8. Kh7 Bf5 9. d6+ (9. Nc6+ $2 Kd7) 9... Kd8 10. Nc6+
Kd7 (10... Kc8 11. Ne7+) 11. Ne5+ Kc8 12. d7+ Kc7 (12... Kd8 13. Nf7+ $11) (
12... Kb7 13. d8=N+ Kc8 14. Ndf7 Bxg6+ 15. Kxg6 $11 {EGTB}) 13. d8=Q+ Kxd8 14.
Nf7+ $3 Qxf7+ 15. Kh8 Qf8+ (15... Bxg6 $11 {stalemate}) (15... Qxg6 $11 {
stalemate}) 16. Qg8 $11 {The final position is known from F. Richter 1965}
1/2-1/2

[Event "1.p 64 Shakhmatnoye Obozrenye"]
[Site "?"]
[Date "2000.??.??"]
[Round "?"]
[White "Pervakov=O"]
[Black "(=0000.12f6a4)"]
[Result "1/2-1/2"]
[Annotator "?"]
[SetUp "1"]
[FEN "8/1p6/5K2/5p2/k7/3P4/8/8 w - - 0 1"]
[PlyCount "17"]
[EventDate "2000.??.??"]

{EG#13163.} 1. Kg5 $1 (1. Ke5 $2 b5 2. d4 b4 3. d5 b3 4. d6 b2 5. d7 b1=Q 6.
d8=Q Qe4+ $1 7. Kf6 (7. Kd6 Qd4+) 7... Qh4+ 8. Kxf5 Qxd8) (1. d4 $2 f4 2. d5 f3
3. d6 f2 4. d7 f1=Q+) (1. Kxf5 $2 b5 2. d4 b4 3. d5 b3 4. d6 b2 5. d7 b1=Q+)
1... b5 (1... Kb3 {<main>} 2. Kxf5 Kc3 3. Ke5 $1 (3. Ke4 $2 b5 4. d4 b4 5. d5
b3 6. d6 b2 7. d7 b1=Q+) 3... Kxd3 (3... b5 4. d4) 4. Kd5 $1 Kc3 5. Kc5) 2. d4
b4 3. d5 Kb5 $1 4. d6 $1 (4. Kf6 $2 Kc5 $1 5. Ke6 b3 6. d6 b2 7. d7 b1=Q 8.
d8=Q Qe4+ 9. Kf7 Qd5+) 4... Kc6 5. Kxf5 $1 Kxd6 (5... b3 {<main>} 6. Ke6 b2 7.
d7) 6. Ke4 Kc5 7. Kd3 Kb5 8. Kc2 Ka4 9. Kb2 1/2-1/2

[Event "5.c Variantim 2018"]
[Site "?"]
[Date "2018.??.??"]
[Round "?"]
[White "M. Dore"]
[Black "?"]
[Result "1-0"]
[Annotator "stjef"]
[SetUp "1"]
[FEN "1N6/3KP1n1/4p3/4P3/1p2k3/8/8/8 w - - 0 1"]
[PlyCount "15"]
[EventDate "2018.??.??"]

1. Na6 $1 ({thematic try:} 1. Nc6 $2 b3 2. Na5 b2 3. Nc4 b1=N $10) 1... b3 2.
Nc5+ Kxe5 3. Nxb3 Kd5 4. Nd2 (4. Na5 $2 e5 5. Nb7 e4 6. Nd8 Kc4 $3 7. Ne6 Nh5
8. Kd8 Nf6 9. Nf4 e3 $10) 4... e5 5. Nf3 e4 6. Ng5 e3 7. Ne6 Nh5 8. Nf4+ $18
1-0

[Event "Van Reek 50 JT"]
[Site "?"]
[Date "1995.??.??"]
[Round "?"]
[White "Van Reek=J"]
[Black "(=0003.11g8a7)"]
[Result "1/2-1/2"]
[SetUp "1"]
[FEN "6K1/kn6/6p1/4P3/8/8/8/8 w - - 0 1"]
[PlyCount "15"]
[EventDate "1995.??.??"]

{EG#10369.} 1. Kf7 $1 (1. e6 $2 g5 $1 2. Kg7 g4 3. Kf6 g3 4. Ke5 g2 5. e7
g1=Q 6. e8=Q Qe3+) 1... g5 2. Ke6 $1 (2. Kf6 $2 g4) 2... g4 3. Kd5 $1 Nc5 $1 (
3... g3 {<main>} 4. e6 g2 5. e7 g1=Q 6. e8=Q Qc5+ 7. Ke6 Qe3+ 8. Kd7 Qd4+ 9.
Ke7 $1 (9. Kc7 $2 Qb6+ 10. Kd7 Nc5+ 11. Kc8 Qb8#) (9. Ke6 $2 Qe4+ 10. Kd7 Nc5+
11. Kd8 Qd5+ 12. Kc7 (12. Ke7 Qe6+) 12... Na6+) 9... Qe5+ 10. Kf8 Qh8+ 11. Ke7)
4. e6 $1 (4. Kd4 $2 g3 5. Ke3 Ne4 $1) 4... Nxe6 5. Ke4 Kb6 6. Ke3 Kc5 7. Kf2
Kd4 8. Kg3 1/2-1/2

