www.arves.org - The Problemist 2020-2021

Studies awarded for the magazine tournament The Problemist 2020-2021.

[Event "1st prize The Problemist 2020-2021"] [Site ""] [Date ""] [Round ""] [White "E 1302 Gady Costeff (Israel)"] [Black ""] [Result "1-0"] [SetUp "1"] [FEN "6bB/1Pp5/n1pp4/3n4/Bk1P4/R3p3/1P1pP3/K1b5 w - - 0 1"] [PlyCount "21"] 
 {It was a privilege for me to judge the studies section of The Problemist. From editor Yochanan Afek I received an impressive 50 studies (including a twin study) from the two year period. The Problemist is surely the strongest informal study tournament around, a testament to Yochanan’s ability to attract the best composers (and their best work). This has been my feeling as a participant in the past (I’ve never come close to winning the tournament) and this was confirmed when trying to discard the studies that should definitely not be in the award. I ended up with a total of 25 awarded studies  (though I felt I could easily have given 35 honorable mentions and commendations). I will begin my presentation by praising someone who certainly doesn’t lack any praise. For this biennial tournament Jan Timman submitted no less than three wonderful improvements of old classic studies. Alain Villeneuve, as well, delivered another fine improvement to an old study. All four studies have inspired me to try working with versions myself in the future. According to the WFCC Codex, anticipated studies are not eligible for awards and I realize that other judges may not have considered these four versions for the award. Nevertheless I feel that the extra creative work of both Timman and Villeneuve was considerable and beautifully in sync with the original study. There was another trend visible in the tournament: The return of the miniature. In the award there are no 9 miniatures including two malyutki by Kuzmichev. First some words about the studies not in the award (in order of appearance in The Problemist) E1276 Michael Pasman, Israel To me this study culminates already with 1...c5, a really amusing bit of counterplay. After the first four moves I find the study boring. It has to do with the gradual progress made (and the tempo moves made by the h-pawns), which is certainly not to my taste. E1277 Lubos Kekely & Michal Hlinka, Slovakia Here the initial tactical skirmish is out of sync with the ensuing pawn endgame. Two disconnected phases. E1279 Bill Alexander, USA A good pawn endgame for solving. There is a slight flaw in the logic, though, as in the mainline the move 8...Qd6 is both defeated by 9. Ka8! and 9. Kb7 Qe7 10. Kb8 Qxb4 11. c8Q. In other words, the position of Kg7 is advantageous to Black in two instances. E1280 Janos Mikitovics, Hungary I consider this a mainly technical endgame. The material of rook and pawn vs knight is well explored and I don't believe there is much new to be found. E1281 Lubos Kekely & Michal Hlinka, Slovakia This is also too technical for me. Looks like an interesting game analysis. E1284 Amatzia Avni, Israel The highlight of this study is evident: A spectacular 5th move. But is has too many technical issues, the main one being a lack of Black counterplay. The material distribution is also unnatural and there is a minor dual in the end. E1286 Vladislav Tarasiuk, Ukraine Vladislav shows his usual constructive skills, but judging is also about taste, and this is simply too artificial for my taste. E1291 Jarl Ulrichsen, Norway The play in these twin studies is too technical. E1292 Peter Krug, Austria Precision without excitement. E1293 Michael Pasman, Israel The festina lente theme in knight endgames (at least in connection with reciprocal zugzwang) fails to surprise me anymore. E1295 Itay Richardson, Israel I think this is mostly about precision. The artistic addition is limited to 3. Kb2. E1296 Peter Krug, Austria I don’t see the artistic element in this precise battle. E1299 Peter Krug, Austria Excelsior and subsequent Festina Lente. One may find awe in the amount of content in such a simple endgame, but still there is nothing new in my view. E1305 Michael Pasman, Israel The introduction here is simply too violent, and the study is not on par with Michael’s recent accomplishments. Obviously he showed skill in making all pieces move, but at times other considerations (like flow and a natural starting position) are more important. E1307 Paul Raican, Romania Yochanan Afek writes: “White handles with precision a lengthy battle to secure the march of his only pawn”. Yes, but the length also makes it boring. I lack some surprises. E1310 Yehoda Hoch & Itay Richardson, Israel It is a shame that the Nh1-line is only a sideline. I see no connection between the introductory skirmishes and the knight endgame. E1313 Pavel Arestov, Russia & Yochanan Afek, Israel A version of a logical miniature by Yochanan Afek based on an earlier idea by the Dutch composer C. De Feijter. I consider the version shown by Yochanan Afek in Variantim (IRT 2020, Sp. hm) better than this co-production. E1316 John Nunn, England As pointed out by John Nunn himself, there is an anticipation by Fomichev (#18034, Birnov MT Molodoj 2002). The extra mainline is not a sufficient addition to put this in the award, though as a whole the study is better than Fomichev's. E1317 Itay Richardson, Israel A good study for solving. Technically this is very well made, buut I think we've seen a little two many of these dual purpose sacrifices (6. Rf3+!) as of late. E1318 Daniele Gatti, Italy There exists many studies where White promotes to knight and a new phase begins. Here I don't see anything of particular meaning in the ensuing play. E1319 Rosalie Fay, England This debut study is unfortunately anticipated by Pavel Arestov, Curierul Problemistic 2019, 1. commendation, which I judged myself. Both studies show the same (surprising) tempo maneuver of rook and pawn vs knight and king. E1321 Robert Pye, Ireland The domination is very nice and comes after a long flowing introduction. It is a shame that the composer did not manage to make Bh4 (and the pawn on g5) move during the solution. Apparently this is a repair of a 30 year old study (!) by Robert Pye himself  (#28231 in HHDVI, 1st hm Scachista 1991) which was later found to be cooked. What is essentially the same study cannot win distinctions in two tournaments, so I left it out of the award, but I still want to congratulate the composer on a very fine study in the style of the old masters. E1322 Vladimir Samilo, Ukraine The small point 8. f6+ does not merit the long introduction with difficult lines. Yochanan Afek, Israel/ Netherlands (New Years study, Kd2/Ka4) Fun for solving, but a little too little for competition. On to the award. The notes to the studies are as in the original issues of the magazine. It is easy to hate the look of the starting position. It is easy to hate the look of the starting position. It is chaotic and does not resemble any game I have ever seen. Generally speaking I put a lot of emphasis on aesthetic elements in the initial position. But I put even more emphasis on the ambition of the idea. This time Gady Costeff won me over. On earlier occasions I have given special prizes for similar ambitious ideas of his. But this time I felt that the ambition warranted a first prize. None of the other good studies in the tournament came close in terms of ambition. By the way, the idea of sheltering the bishop from rook threats is not new. It was used in Kasparyan/ Bondarenko/ Kakovin, Magyar Sakkelet, 1958 (HHDBVI #60619). I don't consider this a serious anticipation.} 1. Bd1 Nb8 2. Ra4+ $1 ({An important intermediate check. Thematic try:} 2. Ra8 $2 Nb6 3. Rxb8 Bb3 $1 4. Rg8 Bxd1 5. b8=Q Bxe2 6. Rg1 Bb5 7. Qxc7 e2 8. Qxd6+ Ka5 9. Qa3+ Na4 10. b4+ Ka6 11. Qxc1 dxc1=Q+ 12. Rxc1 Nc3 { draws.}) 2... Kb5 3. Ra8 Kb6 ({Threatening 4...Ka7. After} 3... Nb6 4. Rxb8 { the follow-up} Bb3 $4 {, as in the try, is useless.}) 4. Rxb8 {4..Bf7/Be6 5. Rf8/ Re6 wins. Therefore the black bishop hides behind the white bishop.} Bh7 { Now white is threatened with 5..Ka7 so he alternates clearing the g or h file creating a threat against the black bishop.} (4... Be6) 5. Bg7 $1 Bg6 $1 (5... Ka7 {is met by} 6. Rh8) 6. Bh6 Bh5 7. Bg5 Bg4 8. Bh4 Bh3 9. Bg3 Bg2 10. Bh2 Bh1 11. Bg1 $1 {The exposed Black Bishop can find no shelter.} 1-0

[Event "2nd Prize The Problemist 2020-2021"] [Site ""] [Date ""] [Round ""] [White "E 1282 Amatzia Avni (Israel)"] [Black "& Martin Minski (Germany)"] [Result "1-0"] [SetUp "1"] [FEN "7k/1R6/4P3/6Pn/2p3Kp/4b1p1/8/qB2B3 w - - 0 1"] [PlyCount "33"] [EventDate "2019"] 
 {What do you do, when you discover a small pretty idea like 10. Bd3 ? If you are Amatzia Avni and Martin Minski you build a tactical (not just economically adequate) introduction with sacrifices west and east. The main thing of concern in such cases is to make sure that the introduction never becomes boring and carries additional meaning. This is done with great success here. Even the first two moves are pleasing and both Black and White exchanges blows after that. There is even a bit of mini logic with the try 6. Kf5+. The editor calls this "a blend of tactical motifs", which is of course correct, but also underselling it a bit. Yes, the tactical motifs are known, but the flow and the lack of even a couple of moves' quiet, makes it very memorable. The anticipation by Riester (HHDBVI# 74983 München Olympiad 1936), mentioned by the authors, is not serious.} 1. e7 Qe5 (1... Nf6+ {fails to} 2. gxf6 Qe5 3. e8=Q+ $1 Qxe8 4. Bc3 g2 5. f7+ {wins.}) 2. e8=Q+ (2. Bc3 $6 {pinning the black queen is met by} Nf6+ $1 {unpin} (2... Bd4 $2 3. e8=Q+ $1 Qxe8 4. Bxd4+ Ng7 5. Rxg7 $18 {leads to the mainline}) 3. gxf6 Qf4+ 4. Kh3 Qf1+ 5. Kxh4 Qf4+ 6. Kh3 Qf1+ {with perpetual check}) 2... Qxe8 3. Bc3+ Ng7 $1 (3... Kg8 {is defeated by } 4. Bh7+ Kf8 5. Bb4+ {wins.}) 4. Rxg7 {battery} Bd4 $1 {opening the e line for the black queen} 5. Bxd4 Qe2+ {position X} 6. Kxh4 ({logical try} 6. Kf5 $2 Qf2+ $1 7. Bxf2 gxf2 8. Kg6 (8. Bd3 $4 Kxg7 9. Bxc4 h3 $19) 8... f1=Q {draws.}) 6... Qh2+ 7. Kg4 Qe2+ {position X without the black pawn on h4} 8. Kf5 (8. Kxg3 $2 Qe1+ {draws.}) 8... Qf2+ $1 ({Since} 8... Qf3+ {fails to} 9. Kg6 Qc6+ 10. Bf6 $18) 9. Bxf2 gxf2 10. Bd3 $3 {The highlight! The diversion of the black pawn to d3 blocks future Q checks along the b1-h7 diagonal.} ({logical try} 10. Kg6 $2 f1=Q 11. Rf7 $4 (11. Be4 Qd1 $1 $11) (11. Bf5 Qxf5+ $1 $11) 11... Qxb1+ {wins.}) 10... cxd3 ({After} 10... Kxg7 11. Bxc4 {decides.}) 11. Kg6 $1 { The final moves appear in Riester cooked study 1936, Kf7/Kh7.} (11. Rf7 $2 Kg8 {/d2} 12. Kg6 d2 {/Kg8} 13. Rxf2 d1=Q $19) 11... f1=Q 12. Rf7 Qxf7+ 13. Kxf7 d2 14. g6 d1=Q 15. g7+ Kh7 16. g8=Q+ Kh6 17. Qg6# 1-0

[Event "3rd Prize The Problemist 2020-2021"] [Site ""] [Date ""] [Round ""] [White "E 1285 Jan Timman, (Netherlands)"] [Black ""] [Result "1-0"] [Annotator ""] [SetUp "1"] [FEN "7r/5p2/3p1n1k/3P4/4PPpp/7P/6K1/2BR4 w - - 0 1"] [PlyCount "23"] [EventDate "2019"] 
 {An exceptionally game-like opening position makes way for a memorable finale. Good play through out.} 1. e5 $1 ({The alternative} 1. Bb2 $2 Kg6 2. hxg4 h3+ 3. Kf3 Rb8 $1 4. f5+ Kg5 5. Bxf6+ Kxf6 6. Kf4 h2 7. g5+ Kg7 8. Rh1 Rb2 9. Kg3 Re2 $11 10. Rxh2 Rxe4 {is good for not more than a draw.}) 1... gxh3+ 2. Kxh3 Ne4 (2... Nh5 {loses to} 3. f5+ Kh7 4. Kxh4 Kg7 5. Bb2 $18) 3. Rd4 f5 (3... Nf2+ {fails to} 4. Kxh4 f5 5. Kg3 Ng4 6. Ba3 ({Or} 6. Rb4 $18) 6... dxe5 7. fxe5 Nxe5 8. Rh4+ {wins.}) 4. Rxe4 $1 {A powerful exchange sacrifice to unleash a mighty pawn trust!} fxe4 5. f5+ Kh5 $1 ({More challenging than either } 5... Kh7 6. e6 Rc8 7. Be3 Kg7 8. Bd4+ Kf8 9. Kxh4 {wins.}) ({or} 5... Kg7 6. f6+ Kg6 7. e6 Rc8 8. f7 {wins.}) 6. e6 Rc8 7. Be3 $1 (7. f6 $2 Rc3+ 8. Kh2 Rc2+ 9. Kh3 Rc3+ {draws.}) 7... Rf8 (7... Rc3 {loses to} 8. Kh2 $1 Rxe3 9. e7 {wins. }) 8. f6 $1 (8. e7) 8... Rxf6 9. e7 Rg6 $1 {For Stalemate} 10. Bh6 $3 Rg3+ 11. Kh2 Rg8 12. Bf8 {wins.} 1-0

[Event "4th prize The Problemist 2020-2021"] [Site ""] [Date ""] [Round ""] [White "E1283 Petr Kiryakov, & Pavel Arestov"] [Black "(Russia)"] [Result "1/2-1/2"] [Annotator ""] [SetUp "1"] [FEN "6K1/1Pq5/2k5/4P3/8/1N6/8/7N w - - 0 1"] [PlyCount "29"] [EventDate "2020"] 
 {8. Nh1 is the perfect find. And as always when Pavel Arestov and Petr Kiryakov are involved the economy is impeccable and clean. Perhaps even a bit too clean for my liking. By the way, as one mainline it clearly more exciting than the other, I would have considered making 1...Kd7 a sideline.} 1. Na5+ { with 2 main lines 1...Kd7 and 1...Kc5} Kc5 ({Other moves are drawn a lot faster:} 1... Kb6 2. e6 Qb8+ 3. Kf7 Kxa5 4. e7 {=}) (1... Kb5 2. e6 Kxa5 3. e7 {=}) (1... Kd5 2. Nf2 Ke6 3. Nc6 {=}) (1... Kd7 {is the second main line:} 2. Ng3 $1 (2. Nf2 $2 {fails to} Qb6 3. Ne4 Kc7 4. Kf7 Qxa5 {wins.}) 2... Qxe5 ( 2... Qb8+ 3. Kf7 Qe8+ (3... Qxe5 4. Ne2 {=}) 4. Kf6 Qe6+ 5. Kg5 Qxe5+ 6. Nf5 Ke6 7. Nc6 Qxf5+ 8. Kh4 Qf4+ 9. Kh3 $1 {=}) 3. Nf5 Qd5+ 4. Kg7 (4. Kh8 $2 Kc7 5. Ne7 Qd8+) 4... Kc7 5. Ne7 Qxa5 6. b8=Q+ Kxb8 7. Nc6+ {A chameleon echo fork to the one awaiting in the end of the solution.}) 2. Nf2 Kb6 (2... Kb5) 3. e6 Kxa5 4. e7 $1 Qg3+ 5. Kh7 $1 Qe5 (5... Qb8 6. Kg6 Qg3+ 7. Kh7 $1 {is a positional draw}) 6. Kg8 $1 Qb8+ 7. Kf7 Qxb7 8. Nh1 $3 {This astounding switch back to the corner in order to take a different direction is the highlight of the solution.} (8. Ng4 Qd5+) 8... Kb5 9. Ng3 $1 Kc6 10. Nf5 Qb3+ 11. Kf8 Qb4 12. Kf7 Qc4+ 13. Kf6 (13. Kf8 $2 {loses to} Qc5 $1) 13... Kd7 (13... Qc3+ 14. Kf7 Qb3+ 15. Kf8 {is again a positional draw}) 14. e8=Q+ $1 Kxe8 15. Nd6+ { A chameleon echo fork. The thematic pieces change their colours compared to the one ending the earlier main line.} 1/2-1/2

[Event "Sp prize The Problemist 2020-2021"] [Site ""] [Date ""] [Round ""] [White "E 1320 Timman, (Netherlands)"] [Black "After A. Stavrietsky"] [Result "1/2-1/2"] [SetUp "1"] [FEN "8/3K4/6P1/8/7r/kN3b2/8/2N5 w - - 0 1"] [PlyCount "29"] [EventDate "2019"] 
 {A wonderful version. Timman again added a lot of meaningful play as well as omiting a useless bishop in the original study by Stavrietsky (Sp. HM Neidze JT 1998, HHDVB#22465). The whole study is based on the (perhaps not known) fact that R+B vs NN is a general win. Therefore White must find a beautiful exception to the rule.} 1. Ke6 $1 (1. Ke7 $2 {allows} Bh5 2. g7 Rg4 3. Kf6 Rg6+ 4. Kf7 Rg1+ 5. Kf6 Rf1+ {And Black wins.}) 1... Rg4 (1... Bh5 {is met by} 2. Kf5 Rg4 3. Ne2 {/Nd3} Rxg6 4. Nf4 {draws.}) 2. Nd2 $1 ({Not} 2. Kf5 $2 Rg1 3. Nd4 Bh5 {And following the fall of the only pawn the ensuing ending is theoretically won for Black.}) 2... Rxg6+ 3. Kf5 Bh5 {Now when Black seems to have consolidated a surprising systematic Knight tango saves the day.} 4. Nb1+ $1 Ka4 ({Or} 4... Kb2 {/ Kb4} 5. Nd3+ Kxb1 6. Nf4 Rh6 7. Kg5 {draws.}) 5. Nc3+ Ka5 6. Nb3+ Ka6 7. Nc5+ Ka7 8. Nb5+ Ka8 9. Nc7+ Kb8 {A dead end for White? Not quite!} 10. Nd7+ $1 Kxc7 11. Nf6 Rh6 12. Kg5 Rg6+ 13. Kf5 Rh6 14. Kg5 Rg6+ 15. Kf5 {Positional draw!} 1/2-1/2

[Event "1st hm The Problemist 2020-2021"] [Site ""] [Date ""] [Round ""] [White "E 1297 Yochanan Afek, (Israel/ Netherlands"] [Black "Solving Texel"] [Result "1-0"] [Annotator ""] [SetUp "1"] [FEN "8/8/1k6/5N1R/4p3/pn2P3/3P3P/4K3 w - - 0 1"] [PlyCount "25"] [EventDate "2020"] 
 {A classic example of elegance and fine flow. Everything leading up to the main pont 9. d4!! is just perfect.} 1. Rh6+ $1 ({Not} 1. Rh8 $2 a2 2. Rb8+ Ka7 3. Rxb3 a1=Q+ 4. Kf2 Qh1 {with an easy draw.}) 1... Ka7 $1 (1... Kb5 2. Rh8 a2 3. Ra8 a1=Q+ 4. Rxa1 Nxa1 {is an easy win in the knight ending.}) 2. Rh7+ Ka6 ( 2... Kb6 {loses to} 3. Ne7 a2 4. Nd5+ Kc5 5. Ra7 $18 {with the consequent winning knight ending again.}) 3. Nd4 $1 (3. Rh8 Ka7 4. Nd4 Nxd4 5. Rc8 a2 6. Rc1 {reaches the very same position as the main line a move later.}) 3... Nxd4 4. Rc7 $1 a2 (4... Nb3 {is met by} 5. Rc2 $18) 5. Rc1 Nb3 6. Rd1 {The Rook finally dominates the pawn but the game is not over yet.} a1=Q 7. Rxa1+ Nxa1 8. h4 Nb3 $1 ({After} 8... Nc2+ 9. Kf2 $1 Nb4 10. h5 Nd5 11. h6 Nf6 12. Kg3 Kb5 13. Kf4 {white wins the last pawn and eventually the game too.}) 9. d4 $3 ({ The main point! After} 9. h5 $2 Nc5 10. h6 Nd3+ 11. Kf1 Ne5 12. Kg2 Kb5 13. Kg3 Nf7 14. h7 Kc4 15. Kf4 Kd5 16. Kf5 Nh8 17. Kf6 Kd6 18. Kg7 Ke7 {Black is back in time!}) 9... exd3 ({Or} 9... Na5 10. h5 Nc4 11. h6 Nd6 12. Kf2 Kb5 13. h7 Nf7 14. Kg3 Kc6 15. Kf4 Kd7 16. Kf5 Ke8 17. Kg6 Ke7 18. Kg7 $18) 10. h5 Nc5 11. h6 {The d3 square is obstructed now!} d2+ {Black is late after all as there is no Nd3 check anymore.} 12. Kd1 {(Ke2)} Ne4 13. h7 {and white finally wins.} 1-0

[Event "2nd hm The Problemist 2020-2021"] [Site ""] [Date "2021"] [Round ""] [White "1303 P. Arestov M. Minski, Russia/Germany"] [Black "(version)"] [Result "1-0"] [SetUp "1"] [FEN "8/1B2K3/8/7p/2k1p2p/8/6P1/8 w - - 0 1"] [PlyCount "25"] [EventDate "2021"] 
 {An excellent miniature with introductory points preparing for the shock 6. Bc4!} 1. Kf6 $1 (1. Bxe4 $2 h3 $1 (1... Kd4 $2 2. Bf5 $18) 2. g3 Kd4 $11) 1... e3 (1... h3 2. gxh3 h4 3. Kg5 e3 4. Bf3 $1 $18 {see main line}) (1... Kd4 2. Kg5 h3 3. gxh3 h4 4. Kxh4 $18) 2. Kg5 $1 (2. Bf3 $2 Kd3 $1 3. Kg5 e2 4. Bxe2+ Kxe2 $11) (2. Ba6+ $2 Kd5 $1 3. Be2 (3. Kg5 h3 $1 $11) 3... h3 $1 4. gxh3 h4 $1 $11) 2... h3 $1 (2... e2 3. Ba6+ Kd4 4. Bxe2 Ke3 5. Kxh4 $1 (5. Bxh5 $2 Kf2 6. Bf3 Kg3 7. Kh5 h3 $11) (5. Bf3 $2 h3 $1 6. gxh3 Kxf3 7. Kxh5 Kf4 8. h4 Kf5 $11) 5... Kxe2 6. Kxh5 Kf2 7. g4 $18) 3. gxh3 h4 $1 (3... e2 4. Ba6+ Kd5 5. Bxe2 h4 6. Bc4+ $3 $18 {see main line}) 4. Bf3 $1 (4. Kxh4 $2 e2 $1 5. Ba6+ Kd5 6. Bxe2 Ke6 7. Kg5 (7. Bc4+ Kf6 8. Kh5 Kg7 $11) 7... Kf7 8. Kh6 Kg8 9. h4 Kh8 $11) (4. Ba6+ $2 Kd5 $11) 4... e2 $1 (4... Kd4 5. Kxh4 $18) 5. Bxe2+ Kd5 6. Bc4+ $3 { the point} (6. Kxh4 $2 Ke6 7. Kg5 Kf7 8. Kh6 Kg8 9. h4 Kh8 $11) 6... Kxc4 (6... Ke5 7. Bb3 {/Ba2+- with zugzwang for Black}) 7. Kxh4 Kd5 8. Kg5 {/Kh6} Ke6 9. Kg6 Ke7 10. Kg7 Ke6 11. h4 Kf5 12. h5 Kg5 13. h6 $18 1-0

[Event "4th hm The Problemist 2020-2021"] [Site ""] [Date ""] [Round ""] [White "E1287 Vladimir Kuzmichev, (Russia)"] [Black ""] [Result "1-0"] [SetUp "1"] [FEN "8/7K/8/8/7B/8/P1n5/7k w - - 0 1"] [PlyCount "19"] [EventDate "2020"] 
 {In two lines, the bishop is placed on the very square where it can be forked by the knight. An amusing theme, but for me very much ruined by the difficult motivation of the moves. A good find.} 1. Kg6 $1 Kg2 2. Kf6 $3 Ne3 ({Another main line is:} 2... Kf3 3. Ke5 $1 Nb4 4. a4 $1 Ke3 5. Be1 $3 Nd3+ 6. Kd5 $1 Nxe1 7. a5 Nd3 (7... Nc2 8. Kc5 $1 Nd4 9. a6 $18) 8. Kc4 Ne5+ 9. Kb5) ({ 2 other accurate lines are:} 2... Nb4 3. a4 $1 Nc6 4. Ke6 $1 Kf3 5. Kd5 $1 Na5 6. Bd8 $1 Nb3 7. Kc4 Ke4 8. Kxb3 Kd5 9. a5 Kc6 10. a6 $18) (2... Nd4 3. Bg5 $1 Kf3 4. Ke5 Nc6+ 5. Kd6 Nb4 6. a4 $18) 3. Ke5 $1 Kf3 (3... Nd1 {loses to} 4. Kd4 $1 Nb2 5. Kc5 {/Bf6}) 4. Bf6 $3 (4. Be7 Nd1 5. Bb4) 4... Ng4+ (4... Ke2 { fails to} 5. Kd4 $1) ({While} 4... Nc4+ {is met by} 5. Kd4 {/Kd5} Nb6 6. Kc5 $1 Nd7+ 7. Kd6 Nxf6 8. a4 $18) 5. Kd6 $3 Nxf6 6. a4 $1 Ke4 (6... Ne8+ {/Se4+} 7. Kc6 $1) 7. a5 Nd5 8. a6 Nb6 9. Kc7 Nd5+ 10. Kb7 {The final curtain!} 1-0

[Event "5th hm The Problemist 2020-2021"] [Site ""] [Date ""] [Round ""] [White "E 1298 Jan Timman, (Netherlands)"] [Black ""] [Result "1/2-1/2"] [SetUp "1"] [FEN "8/3b4/3P3B/1R2P3/4n1k1/1n6/K1N3Pp/8 w - - 0 1"] [PlyCount "27"] [EventDate "2020"] 
 {If there ever was a typical Timman study, this is it. Everything is sacrificed east and west. The finish is nice and clear.} 1. e6 $1 Bxe6 ({ Following} 1... Bxb5 2. d7 h1=Q 3. d8=Q Qxh6 4. Qg8+ {White draws quite easily. }) 2. Ne3+ Kh4 3. d7 $1 Bxd7 ({In between discovered checks are hardly better, either by} 3... Nbd2+ 4. Rd5 $1 Bxd7 5. g3+ Kxg3 6. Rh5 Bh3 7. Bf4+ {draws.}) ( {or by} 3... Nd4+ 4. Ka1 h1=Q+ 5. Rb1 Nb3+ 6. Kb2 {draws.}) 4. Bg5+ $1 { A third sacrifice to open up the fourth rank.} Nxg5 5. Rb4+ Ne4 $1 ({A counter sacrificial zwischenzug since} 5... Kh5 6. Nf1 Nc1+ 7. Kb1 Bf5+ 8. Ka1 h1=N 9. g4+ Bxg4 10. Rb1 Nd3 11. Nh2 Nhf2 12. Nxg4 {just draws.}) 6. Rxe4+ Kg5 7. Re5+ Kg6 8. Rh5 $1 {A sacrificial deflection.} Kxh5 9. Nf1 Nc1+ 10. Kb1 $1 (10. Kb2 $1 {loses to a skewer following} Nd3+ 11. Kc3 h1=N 12. Kxd3 Bb5+ {Wins.}) 10... Bf5+ 11. Kb2 Nd3+ 12. Kc3 h1=N 13. g4+ $1 Kxg4 14. Ne3+ {With a fork as dessert and an eventual draw.} 1/2-1/2

[Event "6th hm The Problemist 2020-2021"] [Site ""] [Date ""] [Round ""] [White "E1300 Jan Sprenger (Germany)"] [Black ""] [Result "1-0"] [Annotator ""] [SetUp "1"] [FEN "3r2N1/k2p4/2n5/2K5/3P4/3P4/8/1R6 w - - 0 1"] [PlyCount "17"] [EventDate "2020"] 
 {[%evp 0,17,172,135,156,156,173,220,221,233,250,250,294,299,324,324,324,324, 324,452]} {It is really strange that the position after 2. Kd6 is winning for White. A nice find, and the subsequent play remains precise and pointed.} 1. Ne7 $3 ({My horse for a crucial tempo!} 1. Nf6 $2 {is refuted by} Rc8 $1 2. Nxd7 ({Or} 2. d5 Ne5+ 3. Kd4 d6 4. Ne4 Nf7 5. Rf1 Rc7 6. Rf6 Rd7 {and Black holds.}) 2... Ne5+ 3. Kd6 Nxd3 {draws.}) 1... Nxe7 ({After} 1... Nb8 2. Kd6 Na6 3. d5 {Black's position is hopeless.}) 2. Kd6 Nc6 ({As the rook ending following} 2... Rh8 3. Kxe7 d5 4. Kd6 {is lost.}) 3. Kc7 Ka6 4. d5 Rh8 5. dxc6 dxc6 6. Kxc6 {The main line splits here into two:} Rc8+ {main A} (6... Rh6+ { main B} 7. Kc5 {/Kd5 and then Kc4} Rh5+ 8. Kc4 Rh8 9. d4 $1 Rc8+ 10. Kd5 Rd8+ 11. Kc6 $1 {( White can also play this later and wander around with the king first, but this is the only path to victory )} Rxd4 12. Ra1+ Ra4 13. Rxa4#) 7. Kd7 Rc3 8. d4 Rd3 9. Kc6 $1 {The best defence is a counter attack! The Black king is cut off. Game over!} 1-0

[Event "7th hm The Problemist 2020-2021"] [Site ""] [Date ""] [Round ""] [White "E1275 Vladimir Kuzmichev, (Russia)"] [Black ""] [Result "1/2-1/2"] [SetUp "1"] [FEN "4n3/8/8/2K5/8/8/7p/5k1B w - - 0 1"] [PlyCount "19"] 
 {Clearly an above average find. There were a number of earlier studies with this material and a corner move by the bishop, but they were all cooked. Thus this seems to be the perfect configuration to show this theme. Unfortunately, 2. Ba8 is the move strong players would probably play in a blitz game. It is not that surprising that the bishop is vulnerable on other squares, though the logic of the try 2. Bc6 is crystal clear.} 1. Kd4 Kg1 (1... Ng7 2. Ke3 Nf5+ 3. Kf4 Nh4 4. Kg3 $11) 2. Ba8 $3 {Other moves allow a knight tempo against the Bishop.} ({Logical try:} 2. Bc6 $2 Kf2 $1 3. Ke5 Kg3 $1 4. Kd4 {Compared to the main line in the solution!)} (4. Bd5 Ng7 5. Be4 Nh5 $19 6. Bh1 Nf4 $1 7. Kf5 Ng2 8. Ke4 Kf2 $1 9. Kd3 Kf1 (9... Kg1 $2 10. Ke2 Kxh1 11. Kf1 $1 Ne3+ 12. Kf2 $11) 10. Kd2 Nh4 11. Kd1 Nf5 12. Kd2 Kg1 13. Ke1 Nh4 14. Ke2 Ng2 15. Kf3 Kxh1 16. Kf2 Ne3 $19) 4... Ng7 5. Ke3 Nf5+ 6. Ke2 Nd4+ {winning.}) (2. Bb7) 2... Kf2 3. Ke5 $1 Kg3 $1 4. Kd4 Ng7 5. Ke3 Nf5+ 6. Ke2 Nd4+ 7. Ke3 (7. Kf1 $2 {is obviously met by} Nf3 {wins.}) 7... Nf5+ 8. Ke2 Nh4 9. Bh1 $1 Ng2 10. Kf1 { Draw} 1/2-1/2

[Event "1st sp. hm The Problemist 2020-2021"] [Site ""] [Date ""] [Round ""] [White "E1315 Alain Villeneuve, (France)"] [Black "After Artur Mandler"] [Result "1/2-1/2"] [SetUp "1"] [FEN "K7/R7/8/8/8/p7/6k1/r7 w - - 0 1"] [PlyCount "13"] [EventDate "2021"] 
 {A definite improvement of a study by Artur Mandler (#63001, Ceskoslovensky Sach 1955). The composer added the precise and brilliant 1. Ra5 to stress the importance of this exact square for the rook.} 1. Ra5 $3 {The only square for the Rook leaving key squares vacated on the route of its King downstairs as demonstrated by the tries:} (1. Ra4 $2 Kf2 (1... Kf3 $2 2. Rh4 $11) 2. Ka7 Ke2 3. Ka6 Kd2 4. Kb5 Kc3 $19) (1. Ra6 $2 Kf2 $3 (1... Kf3 $6 2. Rh6 $1 Kg3 3. Rg6+ Kf2 4. Rc6 Re1 $3 $19) 2. Ka7 Ke2 3. Kb6 {(missing Ka6!)} Kd2 $1 {(or in d3)} 4. Ra4 Kc3 $1 $19) (1. Rc7 $2 {(or Rd7)} Rf1 2. Rg7+ (2. Rc2+ Rf2 $19) 2... Kf3 3. Ra7 Ra1 4. Rc7 Re1 5. Rf7+ Ke3 6. Ra7 Ra1 7. Rb7 Rd1 8. Re7+ Kd3 9. Ra7 Ra1 $19) (1. Kb7 $2 Kf2 2. Ra4 Ke3 {And Black will win the race.}) 1... Kf2 2. Ka7 $1 ({Not} 2. Kb7 $2 Ke3 $3 3. Ka6 (3. Rh5 Rb1+ $1 {& ...a2!}) 3... Kd4 $3 4. Kb5 Rb1+ 5. Kc6 Rb3 $1 {Wins}) 2... Ke2 (2... Ke3 3. Rh5 $3 {(Rg5)} Rf1 (3... Kd4 4. Rh3 $1) 4. Ra5 $11) 3. Ka6 (3. Kb6 $2 Kd3 $19) 3... Kd2 (3... Kd3 4. Rh5 $1 $11) 4. Kb5 $3 Kc3 (4... a2 5. Ka6 $1 Kc3 6. Rc5+ $11) 5. Ka4 Rh1 6. Rc5+ Kd4 (6... Kb2 7. Rb5+ Ka2 8. Rb4 Rh8 9. Rg4 $11) 7. Rc2 {Draws.} 1/2-1/2

[Event "2nd sp. hm The Problemist 2020-2021"] [Site ""] [Date ""] [Round ""] [White "E1294 Jan Timman, (Netherlands)"] [Black "After Fred Lazard"] [Result "1/2-1/2"] [Annotator ""] [SetUp "1"] [FEN "1B3b2/8/3P3r/2R5/8/1p5p/1Pp1k2P/2K5 w - - 0 1"] [PlyCount "23"] 
 {Editor Yochanan Afek writes: "E 2194 improves on a study by by the Parisien master and composer Frederic Lazard (1883-1948), known also from the game Gibaud-Lazard (Paris 1924): 1.d4 Sf6 2.Sd2 e5 3.dxe5 Sg4 4.h3?? Se3! 0-1. Jan added 4 meaningful moves to the original version." And indeed not only meaningful moves but highly artistic ones. A great improvement. The original study has HHDBVI# 76374.} 1. Re5+ Kd3 2. d7 Rd6 $1 3. Re3+ $1 Kxe3 4. Bxd6 Bh6 $1 {This is where Lazard's study starts with a slight difference: the white Bishop is on a3.} 5. Bf8 $1 Bf4 (5... Bg5 6. Be7 $1 Bxe7 7. d8=Q Bxd8 { stalemate!}) 6. Bd6 $1 Bxd6 7. d8=R $1 ({Following} 7. d8=Q $2 Bf4 $1 8. Qd2+ Kf3 {Black wins.}) 7... Bf4 8. Rd2 $3 Bg5 9. Rd5 Kf4 10. Rd2 $1 Bh6 11. Rd6 Kg5 12. Rd2 $1 {Positional draw.The new version adds mutual Rook sacrifices and the Pheonix theme with the rebirth of the White Rook.} 1/2-1/2

[Event "2nd c. The Problemist 2020-2021"] [Site ""] [Date ""] [Round ""] [White "E 1304 Harold vd Heijden, & Jan Timman"] [Black "( Netherlands)"] [Result "1-0"] [Annotator ""] [SetUp "1"] [FEN "R7/3K4/P2n4/8/8/p6p/k6r/3B4 w - - 0 1"] [PlyCount "25"] [EventDate "2016"] 
 {I was very much in doubt about this one. Arguably, the exchange of try and solution in two mainlines is a difficult theme, and technically speaking the solution is perfect, suggesting a prize. But in the end I had to resort to my new favourite question: "Would you show this to your clubmates?" My bet is probably not.} 1. Bb3+ $1 {the solution splits to 2 main variations. Main line A:} Kb2 ({Main line B:} 1... Kxb3 2. Rb8+ $1 {main B2} ({Try:} 2. a7 $2 Nb7 3. Rb8 Rd2+ 4. Kc7 h2 5. a8=Q {and now} h1=Q {is possible since the bSb7 obstructs the a8-h1 diagonal} 6. Rxb7+ Ka2 {and draws, although White wins the bQ by} 7. Rb2+ Rxb2 8. Qxh1 Rc2+ {draws.}) 2... Nb7 ({Main B1} 2... Nb5 3. a7 $1 ({Try:} 3. Rxb5+ $2 Kc4 (3... Ka4) 4. a7 Kxb5 {draws.}) 3... Rd2+ 4. Ke7 Re2+ 5. Kf7 (5. Kf8) 5... Rf2+ 6. Kg7 (6. Kg8) 6... Rg2+ 7. Kh7 (7. Kh8) 7... h2 8. Rxb5+ Kc4 9. Rh5 {wins}) 3. Rxb7+ {Or} ({Not} 3. a7 $2 Rd2+ 4. Ke7 (4. Kc7) 4... h2 5. Rxb7+ Ka2 {and no Rh7}) 3... Ka2 4. a7 Rd2+ 5. Ke8 $1 Re2+ 6. Kf8 $1 Rf2+ 7. Kg8 $1 Rg2+ 8. Kh8 $1 h2 9. Rh7 $18) 2. Rb8 $1 {White sets up a battery.} ({Try:} 2. Kxd6 $2 Rd2+ 3. Kc7 Rc2+ $1 4. Bxc2 a2 5. Rb8+ Kxc2 6. a7 a1=Q 7. a8=Q Qg7+ {draws.}) 2... Rd2 ({Black sets up a battery too as now} 2... a2 3. Bxa2+ Kxa2 4. a7 {is an easy win.}) 3. Ke6 $1 ({White should not fire the battery:} 3. Bd5+ $2 Nb7 $1 4. Kc6 Rxd5 $1 5. Kxd5 a2 6. a7 a1=Q {draws.}) 3... Ne8 {Now White fires the battery:} (3... a2 4. Bxa2+ Kxa2 5. a7 {wins.}) ( {Or} 3... h2 4. a7 h1=Q 5. Bd5+ Nb5 $5 6. Rxb5+ Ka1 7. Bxh1 {wins.}) 4. Bd5+ $3 (4. Bc4+ {e.g.} Kc1 5. Rxe8 a2 {and no Rc8+}) 4... Kc1 5. Rxe8 a2 6. Rc8+ $1 Kb1 7. Rf8 $1 Re2+ (7... Rxd5 {is defeated by} 8. Kxd5 a1=Q 9. Rf1+ Kb2 10. Rxa1 Kxa1 11. a7 h2 12. a8=Q+ {with check}) 8. Kd7 $1 ({Not} 8. Kd6 $2 a1=Q 9. Rf1+ Kb2 10. Rxa1 Kxa1 11. a7 Re8 {the wK must cover e8!}) 8... Rd2 9. Rf1+ Kb2 10. Kd6 $1 ({Tries:} 10. Kc6 $2 Rc2+ 11. Kb7 Re2 12. a7 Re7+ 13. Kb6 Rxa7 { draws.}) (10. Ke6 $2 Re2+ 11. Kf7 $1 Rc2 $1 12. a7 Rc7+ {draws again.}) 10... h2 11. a7 a1=Q 12. Rxa1 Kxa1 13. a8=Q+ {with check, so Black cannot play 13... h1Q Note that in the main lines A1/A2 the solution and tries are exchanged: 2.. .Sb5 3.a7! (3. Rxb5+?) and 2...Sb7 3. Rxb7! (3.a7?).} 1-0

[Event "3th c. The Problemist 2020-2021"] [Site ""] [Date ""] [Round ""] [White "E 1278 John Nunn, England"] [Black ""] [Result "1/2-1/2"] [Annotator ""] [SetUp "1"] [FEN "7k/8/1nNKn3/4P3/2bP2p1/p7/P4B2/8 w - - 0 1"] [PlyCount "20"] [EventDate "2019"] 
 {The play after 3. Kf5 is exceptionally fine and elegant and the stalemate combination (though not the stalemate picture) is new. I fail to see the value of the opening moves that even involve the capture of a passive knight on e6.}  1. d5 $1 ({The alternative} 1. Nb4 $2 Nf4 2. Kc5 (2. e6 Bxe6 3. Ke5 Nfd5 {wins} ) 2... Nfd5 3. Nxd5 Bxd5 4. Kxb6 Bxa2 {wins for Black}) 1... Nxd5 2. Kxe6 Bxa2 3. Kf5 $1 g3 $1 ({A clever zwischenzug since} 3... Bb1+ 4. Kxg4 a2 5. Bd4 { draws comfortably.}) 4. Bxg3 Ne7+ $1 ({Deflecting the knight to avoid its fork after} 4... Bb1+ 5. Kg5 $1 a2 6. e6 a1=Q 7. Be5+ {draws}) 5. Nxe7 Bb1+ 6. Kg5 a2 {Any rescuing resource left?} 7. Kh6 $1 ({Move order is crucial:} 7. Bh4 $2 Kg7 $1 {wins for Black}) 7... a1=Q 8. Bh4 $1 Qxe5 9. Ng6+ $1 Bxg6 10. Bf6+ $1 Qxf6 {stalemate!} 1/2-1/2

[Event "4th c. The Problemist 2020-2021"] [Site ""] [Date ""] [Round ""] [White "E 1311 Robin Swinkels, (Netherlands)"] [Black ""] [Result "1/2-1/2"] [SetUp "1"] [FEN "4k3/6p1/8/P7/1n6/8/6P1/2K5 w - - 0 1"] [PlyCount "17"] [EventDate "2021"] 
 {My feeling about this study is that it should ideally belong in a endgame text book for advanced players. A grandmaster study in other words (by a grandmaster, as it happens). The fact that the distant opposition exists in a knight endgame is not that paradoxical, and with the paradox gone, we are mainly left with a technical endgame.} 1. Kd2 Kd7 ({Another main line is} 1... Kf7 2. Kc3 $1 (2. Ke3 $2 Kg6 $1 3. Kf4 Kf6 $19 {with transposition to the logical try 2. Kc3}) 2... Na6 3. Kc4 $1 {/Kd3} (3. Kd4 $2 Ke6 $1 4. Ke4 Nc5+ 5. Kf4 Kf6 $19) 3... Ke6 4. Kd4 $1 Kd6 5. Ke4 {draws- see below}) 2. Ke3 $1 ({ logical try} 2. Kc3 $2 Na6 3. Kd4 (3. Kc4 Kd6 $19 {eg} 4. Kd4 Nc5 5. Kc4 g5 6. Kd4 Nb3+ 7. Ke4 Ke6 $1 8. a6 Nc5+ $19) 3... Ke6 $3 4. Ke4 Nc5+ 5. Kf4 Kf6 { and Black achieves the g5-move without allowing for white Kh5:} 6. Kg4 g6 $1 7. Kf4 g5+ 8. Kg4 Kg6 9. Kf3 Kf5 $19 {White either has to drop his pawn or is mated in the corner}) 2... Ke7 (2... Ke6 3. Ke4 {is one of the reciprocal zzs, white draws when black is to move, and loses otherwise.} Kf6 4. Kf4 $1 Kg6 ( 4... Na6 5. Ke4 Nb4 6. Kf4) 5. Kg4 $1 Na6 6. Kf4 {draws.}) 3. Kf3 $1 {White can only enter the fourth rank as soon as Black has chosen a square for the king on the sixth rank.} ({logical try} 3. Ke4 $2 Ke6 4. Kf4 Kf6 5. Kg4 (5. Ke4 Kg5 $19) 5... Na6 6. Kf4 (6. Kh5 Kf5 {White is being squeezed on the edge of the board and has to concede space or advance hispawn}) 6... Nc5 $19 {with transposition to the try 2. Kc3}) (3. Kf4 $2 Kf6 {see 3. Ke4}) 3... Kf7 4. Kg3 $3 {distant opposition to prepare zz Kf4/ Kf6 or Kg4/Kg6} (4. Ke3 $2 Kg6 $1 5. Kd2 Kf5 6. Kc3 Na6 7. Kc4 Ke5 8. Kb5 Nb8 {and Black wins by sacrificing the knight for the pawn.}) 4... Na6 $5 (4... Kg6 5. Kg4 Kf6 6. Kf4 {eg} g6 7. Kg4 Na6 8. Kf4 {and Black cannot achieve both Nc5 and g5+ in one move} Nc5 9. Kg4 g5 10. Kh5 $1 {and White clings to the g-pawn} Kf5) (4... Ke6 5. Kg4 $1 Kf6 6. Kf4 $10) 5. Kf4 $1 {White must prevent the transfer of the knight to c5.} (5. Kg4 Kf6 $1 6. Kf4 Nc5 {and Black wins as seen before}) 5... Kf6 (5... Ke6 $2 6. Kg5 $1 Kf7 7. Kf5 {draws.}) 6. Ke4 Ke6 7. Kf4 Nc5 {Otherwise White stays on f4 and e4.} 8. Kg5 $1 Kf7 9. Kf5 {Draw.} 1/2-1/2

[Event "6th c. The Problemist 2020-2021"] [Site ""] [Date ""] [Round ""] [White "E 1308 M. Hlinka &L. Kekely, (Slovakia)"] [Black ""] [Result "1/2-1/2"] [Annotator ""] [SetUp "1"] [FEN "n7/b7/1p6/8/6KP/4k3/2P5/3B4 w - - 0 1"] [PlyCount "17"] [EventDate "2021"] 
 {4. Bb5! is great, but the lines after the alternatives, for instance 4. Kf5 are incomphrehensible to me. Also, I feel that the sacrifice ought to be used in a win study somehow.} 1. c4 $1 {to stop the pawn since after} (1. h5 $2 b5 { the passer is easily restrained.}) 1... Kd4 2. h5 ({No time for} 2. Be2 $2 Ke5 3. h5 Bb8 4. Kg5 Ke6 {Winning.}) ({While following} 2. Bf3 $2 Nc7 3. h5 Kxc4 4. h6 b5 {the pawn march is once again under control.}) 2... Kxc4 3. Be2+ $1 Kb4 4. Bb5 $3 {The point!} Bb8 ({As} 4... Kxb5 {allows} 5. h6 Bb8 6. Kf5 {Queening though not winning.}) ({Or} 4... Nc7 5. h6 Nd5 6. Kf5 Ne7+ 7. Kf6 $1 Ng8+ 8. Kg7 Nxh6 9. Bd7 $1 {dominating the Knight.}) 5. Bc6 (5. Kf5 $2 {loses to, for example,} Bh2 6. h6 Bg1 7. Ke4 Kc5 8. h7 Bd4 {Game over.}) 5... Nc7 6. h6 ({ And now} 6. Kf5 $2 {is met by} b5 7. h6 Ba7 8. Ke4 Kc3 {to stop the pawn once again.}) 6... Ne6 ({Naturally not} 6... Nb5 7. Bxb5 {draws as following} Kxb5 8. Kf5 {the pawn is unstoppable.}) 7. h7 Be5 8. Kf5 Nf8 9. Kxe5 {Mission accomplished.} 1/2-1/2

[Event "7th c. The Problemist 2020-2021"] [Site ""] [Date ""] [Round ""] [White "E 1289 David Gurgenidze, (Georgia)"] [Black ""] [Result "1-0"] [Annotator ""] [SetUp "1"] [FEN "6r1/7P/R7/1p6/2R2p2/3K2p1/2pp4/7k w - - 0 1"] [PlyCount "29"] [EventDate "2020"] 
 {Not the usual economy. The introduction is a little messy, despite it virtues. Rook endings are the trademark of the Georgian school of study composition. E 1289 is a lively example by its most eminent representative displaying a variety of tactical motives:} 1. Rh6+ Kg1 (1... Kg2 {fails to a pin:} 2. Rxc2 Rd8+ 3. Ke4 {wins.}) 2. Kxc2 d1=Q+ 3. Kxd1 Rd8+ 4. Rd4 $3 ({A sacrificial deflection to gain vital tempi while} 4. Ke2 $2 bxc4 5. h8=Q Rxh8 6. Rxh8 c3 7. Kf3 c2 8. Rc8 g2 9. Rxc2 Kh1 10. Rxg2 {ends up in a Stalemate!}) 4... Rxd4+ 5. Ke2 Re4+ (5... Rd8 6. h8=Q Rxh8 7. Rxh8 b4 8. Kf3 $18 {makes not much of a difference.}) 6. Kf3 Re3+ 7. Kxf4 Re8 8. Kxg3 ({Neither} 8. h8=Q $2 Rxh8 9. Rxh8 Kf2 10. Rc8 g2 11. Rc2+ Kf1 12. Kf3 g1=N+ $1 13. Ke3 b4) ({Nor} 8. Re6 $2 Rxe6 9. h8=Q g2 10. Kf3 Rd6 11. Qa1+ Kh2 12. Qe5+ Kh1 {secure more than a draw. }) 8... Rh8 9. Re6 $1 {Hindering the black monarch from approaching the queenside too fast.} Kf1 10. Re7 b4 11. Kg4 b3 12. Kg5 b2 13. Rb7 Rxh7 14. Rxh7 b1=Q 15. Rh1+ $18 {with a decisive skewer.} 1-0

[Event "10th c. The Problemist 2020-2021"] [Site ""] [Date ""] [Round ""] [White "E1312 Vladislav Tarasiuk, (Ukraine)"] [Black ""] [Result "1-0"] [Annotator ""] [SetUp "1"] [FEN "8/3p4/K7/2k2p2/8/3P4/8/5B2 w - - 0 1"] [PlyCount "23"] [EventDate "2021.03.20"] 
 {2. Kc8 is certainly paradoxical. The motivation, however, is rather conventational: Winning the opposition. A one-move study with good, though tecnical play surrounding it.} 1. Kb7 f4 2. Kc8 $3 ({Thematic try:} 2. Kc7 $2 f3 $1 {zz} 3. Kxd7 Kd5 4. Kc7 Kc5 5. Kb7 Kd5 $1 6. Kb6 Kd6 $1 7. Kb5 Kd5 8. Kb4 Kd4 9. Kb3 Ke3 $1 10. Kc3 Kf2 11. Bh3 Kg3 12. Bf1 Kf2 {With a positional draw}) 2... f3 3. Kc7 $3 ({Reciprocal Zugzwang with BTM while} 3. Kxd7 $2 Kd5 4. Kc7 Kc5 $1 5. Kb7 Kd5 $1 {draws- see thematic try.}) 3... d6 4. Kb7 ({After} 4. Kd7 $2 Kd5 5. Ke7 Ke5 6. Kf7 Kf5 {it's just a draw}) 4... Kd5 5. Kb6 Kd4 6. Kc6 Ke3 $1 (6... Ke5 {Allows} 7. Kc7 $1 Ke6 8. Kd8 Ke5 9. Ke7 d5 10. Kd7 {Winning.}) 7. Kd5 Kf2 8. Bh3 $1 (8. Ke4 $2 Kxf1 9. Kxf3 Ke1 {draws.}) 8... Kg3 9. Ke4 $1 Kxh3 10. Kxf3 Kh4 11. Kf4 $1 ({Shouldering while} 11. Ke4 $2 Kg5 $1 12. Kd5 Kf4 $1 13. Kxd6 Ke3 {just draws.}) 11... Kh5 12. Kf5 {win} 1-0

[Event "Sp. c. The Problemist 2020-2021"] [Site ""] [Date ""] [Round ""] [White "E 1301 Jan Timman(Netherlands)"] [Black "After S. Kozlowski"] [Result "1-0"] [Annotator ""] [SetUp "1"] [FEN "7k/2K3p1/2N3P1/1P6/p4p2/8/2pb1B2/2n5 w - - 0 1"] [PlyCount "15"] [EventDate "2020"] 
 {The study is after Kozlowski, Glos Poranny 1931 (HHDVI #78099). Timman likes sacrificing both bishop and knight in the battle against an advanced pawn. The sacrifices are nice and clear. A small, elegant study.} 1. b6 Ba5 $1 ({To open up the "c" file.} 1... f3 {is met by} 2. Bc5 $1 Bf4+ 3. Bd6 {Wins}) 2. Nxa5 Ne2 (2... Nb3 3. b7 c1=Q+ 4. Kb6 $18) (2... Na2 3. b7 c1=Q+ 4. Nc6 Qb1 5. Bb6 Qxg6 6. b8=Q+ Kh7 7. Ne7 Qf7 (7... Qe6 8. Qe8 $18) 8. Kd7 $18) (2... Nd3 3. b7 c1=Q+ 4. Nc6) 3. Be3 $1 ({A counter Bishop sacrifice to block the access to e3 by a future queen. The natural} 3. b7 $2 {fails to} c1=Q+ 4. Nc6 Qb1 5. Bb6 Qxg6 6. b8=Q+ Kh7 7. Ne7 Qf7 ({or} 7... Qe6 $11)) (3. Nb3 axb3 4. b7 c1=Q+ 5. Kb6 Qc4 6. b8=Q+ Qg8) 3... fxe3 4. Nb3 $1 {To shut off the "b" file.} axb3 5. b7 c1=Q+ 6. Kb6 Qc4 7. b8=Q+ Qg8 8. Qh2+ {Mating next.} 1-0