10th Belgrade Problem Chess Festival

The 10th Belgrade Problem Chess Festival
(April, 4th – 6th 2014)
Early April brought us some rain, some novelties and a very good company. The standard program
was extended to three composing tourneys, and two solving competitions, thanks to the experimental
Composing/Solving/Judging event. We were happy to see two distinguished new participants, Jorma
Paavilainen and Aleksandr Bulavka, as well as successful come-back of Michel Caillaud, who went
unbeaten in the Open Solving Championship of Serbia, with the perfect score. It was his second
appearance and the second win – the only reason to prevent Marko Filipović winning three times in a
row. Still, Marko won the other solving event, with another perfect score, and was motivated to try his
composing skills in the tensed race for Overall Winner. At the end, this title belonged to Miodrag
Mladenović, equally successful in 4 out of 5 competitions. The winners of composing tourneys were
Valery Shanshin, Dragan Stojnić, and Borislav Gadjanski.
The organizers’ proud was to have five domestic juniors in the field. Among them, Dragan Čiča (18) and
Živojin Perović (14) were best in the main solving event, while Marko Ložajić (15), Mihailo Savić (13)
and Ilija Serafimović (10) succesfully took part in both solving and composing.
There were some Mini Lectures, and some more “Mini-Mini” Lectures. Dinu-Ioan Nicula took risk of
being late on Romanian Youth Chess Championship (as the judge), to keep the tradition of his lectures.
We heard the touching story "Leon Loewenton - giving check to Gestapo", occasioned by the 50th
commemoration of Loewenton's death. Lecture was inspired by his book of memories from the French
Resistance, issued at Bucharest in 1944 under the title "Tracked by Gestapo/Urmariti de Gestapo". The
other highlight was a very nice tribute to the recently passed away Wolfgang Dittmann and his work in
the field of retro analysis, by Michel Caillaud. Siegfried Hornecker sent us his study-greeting to be
presented, and it made quite an effect on the audience.
Many people participated in the organization, run by the Serbian Problem Chess Society, and we could
mention only some of them. Professor Miloš Nedeljković offered a large solving hall in the Faculty of
mechanical engineering. The “Beograd” Chess Club, and its president Aca Milićević were traditional
hosts of other events. Gligor and Ivan Denkovski were solving judges again, with a solvers-friendly
selection. Gligor couldn’t come to Belgrade, but there was Borislav Ilinčić to help Ivan who has kept the
tradition – together with Dinu-Ioan Nicula – of only foreign participants of all 10 Belgrade Festivals.
Composing tourneys were conducted and judged by Borislav Gadjanski and Marjan Kovačević, with
Darko Šaljić as the neutral judge. Branislav Djurašević organized another excursion – a visit to the
“Nikola Tesla” Museum. Last but not least, the master of the social activities was Milomir Babić, with
his self-prepared (strong) drinks and food. We hope this year was a good enough announcement for the
11th BPCF 2015.
See you next spring!
Participants (59)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
Aca Milićević
Aleksandr Bulavka
Aleksandr Semenenko
Bojan Bubanja
Bojan Vučković
Borislav Gadjanski
Borislav Ilinčić
Božidar Šoškić
Branislav Djurašević
Branko Udovčić
Daniel Wirajaya
Darko Hlebec
Darko Šaljić
Dean Miletić
Dieter Müller
Dinu-Ioan Nicula
Dragan Čiča
Dragan Stojnić
Emanuel Navon
Evgeni Bourd
Franz Pachl
Gligor Denkovski
Igor Spirić
Ilija Serafimović
Ingemar Lind
Ivan Bender
Ivan Denkovski
Ivo Tominić
Jorma Paavilainen
Marjan Kovačević
Marko Filipović
Marko Klasinc
Marko Ložajić
Menachem Witztum
Michel Caillaud
Mihailo Savić
Mihajlo Milanović
Milan Simić
Milomir Babić
Miodrag Mladenović
Miodrag Radomirović
Mirko Miljanić
Nebojša B. Joksimović
Nikola Nikolić
Nikola Predrag
Nikola Stolev
Paz Einat
Radomir Nikitović
Ralf Krätschmer
Robert Burger
Slobodan Šaletić
Srećko Radović
Valery Semenenko
Valery Shanshin
Vladimir Podinić
Zoran Sibinović
Zvonimir Hernitz
Živko Janevski
Živojin Perović
SRB
BLR
UKR
MNE
SRB
SRB
SRB
SRB
SRB
CRO
INA
SRB
SRB
SRB
GER
ROU
SRB
SRB
ISR
ISR
GER
MKD
SRB
SRB
SWE
CRO
MKD
CRO
FIN
SRB
CRO
SLO
SRB
ISR
FRA
SRB
SRB
SRB
SRB
SRB
SRB
SRB
SRB
SRB
CRO
MKD
ISR
SRB
GER
USA
SRB
SRB
UKR
RUS
SRB
SRB
CRO
MKD
SRB
S1
S2
x
x
C1
C2
C3
L
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x*
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
S1 = Open Solving Championship of Serbia
x
S2 = Quick Solving, Ser-h#3
x
x
x
x
x
x*
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
C1 = BIT, #2, composing
(Belgrade Internet Tourney – group A)
C2 = BIT, h#2, composing
(Belgrade Internet Tourney – group B)
C3 = BIT, Ser-h#3, composing
(Belgrade Internet Tourney – group C)
x
x
x
x
(Originals from BIT 2014 – group C)
L = Mini lectures
x
* = coauthors
Open Solving Championship of Serbia, Belgrade
April 5th – 6th , 2014
Rnk
Solver
Rating
Cntry
2#
3#
eg.
h#
n#
pts
t
pts
t
pts
t
pts
t
pts
s#
Total
t pts t
pts
t
ΔR
1
Michel Caillaud
GM
2555.56
FRA
15
17
15
59
15
71
15
20
15 35 15 50
90
252
23
2
Marko Filipović
IM
2624.82
CRO
15
19
15
49
14
49
15
39
15 63 15 50
89
269
5
3
Vladimir Podinić
GM
2614.55
SRB
10
15
15
32
15
43
15
21
15 53 14 50
84
214
-8
4
Jorma Paavilainen
GM
2484.25
FIN
10
20
15
60
15
48
15
29
15 38 14 50
84
245
21
5
Aleksandr Bulavka
IM
2432.46
BLR
15
19
15
60
15
64
15
40
15 53
84
286
32
6
Miodrag Mladenović GM
2570.70
SRB
15
11
15
52
10 100 12½ 42 13 27 15 22 80½
254
-9
7
Bojan Vučković
2661.08
SRB
15
20
14
34
15
20
8
Branislav Djurašević
2309.78
SRB
15
19
12
60
15
95
9
Marko Klasinc
FM
2274.76
SLO
15
19
10
60
11
97
10 Nikola Predrag
FM
2371.69
CRO
10
20
12
60
15
74
11 Srećko Radović
FM
2345.17
SRB
15
14
5
60
14
60
11½ 50 10 80 10 50 65½
12 Igor Spirić
2238.85
SRB
15
17
10
60
15
52
3¾ 50
0
80
9
50
13 Branko Udovčić
1929.36
CRO
5
20
11
60
10 100
10
5
80
9
50
14 Milan Simic
2111.36
SRB
10
20
11
60
10
65
3¾ 50 10 80
3
15 Zoran Sibinović
2035.28
SRB
5
20
8
60
15
99
5¼ 50
3
80
16 Dragan Čiča
1883.63
SRB
10
20
10
60
14
67
5¼ 50
0
17 Dean Miletić
2035.93
SRB
15
17
5
60
10
98
3¾ 50
18 Ivan Bender
2232.30
CRO
5
20
7
60
15
92
10
19 Mirko Miljanić
1963.61
SRB
5
20
5
60
15
68
20 Dinu-Ioan Nicula
2330.72
ROU
10
20
5
21 Mihajlo Milanović
1958.88
SRB
10
18
22 Živojin Perović
1817.40
SRB
10
23 Bojan Bubanja
1965.35
MNE
24 Marko Ložajić
1873.80
25 Božidar Šoškić
GM
9
50
6¾ 50 15 46 10 50 75¾ 220 -43
8
15 68
5
50
70
342
17
12½ 39 15 77
5
50
68½
342
21
4
50
66
330
-8
314
-4
15
50
46
52¾ 309 -19
50
360
41
50
47¾ 325
-6
9
50
45¼
359
10
80
5
50
44¼
327
37
5
79
4
50
42¾ 354
0
50
0
80
5
50
3¾ 50
8
80
5
50
41¾ 328 10
60
10 100 3¾ 50
5
80
6
50
39¾ 360 -72
3
60
15
69
3¾ 50
3
80
4
50
38¾ 327
20
3¾
60
14
71
3¾ 50 1½ 80
4
50
37
331
5
20
13
47
7
55
35
302 -16
SRB
15
20
0
60
15
1915.46
SRB
10
20
3¾
60
26 Dragan Stojnić
1755.71
SRB
10
10
7¾
27 Nikola Nikolić
1819.78
SRB
0
20
10
5
50
10 80
42
352 -47
4
32
50
5
80
0
50
46
3¾ 50
0
80
0
50
33¾ 306
9
44
3¾ 50
0
80
5
50
31½
60
3
100
50
0
80
5
50
30¾ 350 16
60
0
100
2½ 50
3
80
4
50
19½
5
-
304 -11
360 -26
Judges: Gligor & Ivan Denkovski
OSCS 2014 – Problems & Solutions
Problems
1
2
3
£n£¤£¤£¤
¤£¤m¤£¤£
£¤£¤£¤£Z
¤£¼2¤£¤£
©¤«¤£¤£¼
¤¹º£¤¹¤£
£¤£¤W¤£¤
¤©¤£¤£p0
0¤£¤Gp£¤
¤£¤¹¤£Z£
£¤£¤£¤£¤
X£¤»¤£¤Y
£¤¹3¹ªW¤
¤oª£¤¹¤£
£n£º£¤£¤
¤I¤«¤m¤£
£Z£n£¤m¤
¤£¤o¼£1£
£¤£¼£¤»ª
¤£¼¹3¹¼£
W¤£¤©¤£X
¤£¤£¤£¤£
G¤£¤£¤¹p
¤£¤£Z£¤£
#2
#2
#2
9+6
13+8
11+10
4
5
6
£1£¤£¤£¤
¤¹¤£¤£¤£
£¤»ª£¤£n
¤£¼2º£¤¹
£¤£ª£¤£¤
¤£¤£¤£¤£
¹p£¤¹¤£¤
¤£¤G¤m¤£
£nm¤£¤£¤
¤»¤©¤£¤£
£ª2¼£º£º
¬Y¤»¤£1£
G¤»X»¼£¤
¤£¼£¤»¤£
£Z£po¤£¤
¤«¤£¤£¤£
£¤£¤G¤£¤
¤£¤¹¤W¤£
£p0¼£º£¼
¤W¤£ª2¤£
£¤»Z£¤£º
¤£Z£n»¤£
£¤£¤£¼oº
¤£¤m¤£¤£
#3
#3
11+4
9+15
#3
11+10
7
8
9
£¤£¤£¤©3
¤£¤£X£¤»
£¤£¤£X£¤
¤£¤£¤£¤£
£¤£¤£¼£1
¤£¤£p£¤£
£¤£¤Y¤»¤
¤£¤£¤o¤£
mª0¤£¤£¤
¤£¤£¤£¤£
»¤£¤£¤£¤
J£3£¤£¤¹
£¤£¤£¤»¤
¤£¤£¤£º£
£º£¤£¤£¼
¤£¤£¤£¤£
£¤£¤£¤0¤
¤£¤W¤£º£
£¤£¤£¤2º
¤£¤«¤£¼£
Y¤£¤£¤£º
¤£¤£¤£¤£
£¤¹¤£¤£¤
¤o¤£¤£¤£
+
+
=
4+7
6+5
6+5
10
11
12
£¤£¤£p£¤
¤»¤£¤£¤£
£¬o¼m¤£¤
¤»¤£ª£¤£
£¼£3£¼£¤
¤£X£¤£¤£
0¼£¤¹¤Y¤
¤£¤£¤£¤£
£¤£p£¤£¤
¤£¤£¤o¤£
£¼£º£¤£¤
¤»¤«º£¼£
¹¼£º»¤0¬
¤¹¼2º£º£
£¤£ª£¤£¤
¤£¤W¤£¤I
©¬£¤£¤Y¤
¤£¤£¤£¤£
£¤£¤£¤£¤
¤£¤2¤£¼£
£¤»¤o¼£¤
¼£¤£¤£¤»
I¤Y¤£¤£¼
¤£¤£1£¬£
h#2
h#3
h#5
4 sol.
5+11
3 sol.
10+12
2 sol.
2+13
13
14
15
£X£¤£¤£¤
¤£Z»¤m¤0
£¤»Ho¤£¤
¼»¤»¤£¼£
£¤£3»¤»¤
¤W¤£ª£º£
£º¹¤£º£ª
¤£Z£¤£¤£
£¤£¤£¤£¤
¤£¤£¤©¼«
£¼0¤£¤£¤
¼£º¹¤©n£
£p£¤2¤¹¤
¤£¤£¤»ºm
«¤¹¼£º£¤
¤£¤Y¤£¤£
£¤0¤£¤£¤
¤W¤£¤£¤£
£¤¹¤G¤£¤
¼£¼¹¼£¤£
£¤2¤£¼»¤
¤©¤»Z£¤W
Yº£º»po¤
¤£J£¤©¤£
#4
#5
#6
11+12
11+10
10+13
16
17
18
£¤£¤£¤£¤
n£¤£¤£¤£
»¤»¤£¤£¤
Z2¼£¤W¤o
»¤£H£¤£¤
1£¤£ª£¤Y
»¬£¤£¤£¼
JWp£¤£¤£
£¤£¤£¤£¤
¤£¤Gn£¤£
o¤»º£¤©¤
¤£¼2¤»º£
£¼«¤£¤£X
¬m¤0¤£¼£
£¤©X¹ZY¤
¤£¤£¤£¤I
£¤£HWªYJ
¤£X£¤£p»
£¤»ªm¤£¼
¼£º£3£º£
¹¤£¤»¤¹¤
º£1»º£¤£
£¤¹¤£¤£¤
n£¤£¤£¤£
s#2
s#3
s#5
6+13
11+12
15+10
Solutions
1. Ivan Denkovski
6. hm Mat 1987 (v)
2. Efim Rukhlis
„64“ 1941
1.Cd2? Ce3! ,1.Cb2? Cd6!
1.Ge4? Ed4!
1.Ca3! [5] (2.bc4#)
1…S~ 2.G(:)e5# , 1…Se3 2.Gd2#
1…Sd6 2.Cb6#
1.e5! [5] (2.G:d5#) 1… G:e5 2.Ce6#
1… G:d7 2.Cd3#, 1… Ec5 2.Cb5#
1… Ce3 2.C:b1#,1… Ia1,Ia2 2.Cg6#
1… Ie4 2.C:d1#,1… Id3 2.Cfe2#
1… E:c4 2.Cce2#
4. Milan Legiša
5. Antonio Piatesi
3. Gerhard Latzel
1. Pr. Lippische Landeszeitung 1950
1.C:d6? (2.Chf7,Cdf7,Cc4#) Ee6!
1.Cd2? (2.Cc4,Cf3#) g4!, 1.C:g5?
(2.Cgf7,Cf3#) Gb3!, 1.Cf2?
(2.Cd3,Cfg4#) c4!, 1.Cf6?
(2.Cfg4,C:d7#) E:a4!
1.C:c5! [5] (2.Cd3,C:d7#),1… dc5
2.Ec7#
1… E:f5 2.Cf7#, 1… Eb5 2.Ib2#
Dmitry K. Kanonik
Mat 1979
1.Eh3! (2.Cf3+ [1] Ed4 3.e4#)
1… K:e5 2.C:c6+ [1] Kf6 3.If1#
1… E:d4 2.Cc4 [1] K:c4/Ke4
3.Ib3#/Ih1#
1… c4 2.Ce6+ [1] Ed4/K:e5
3.I:d4#/Eg7#
1… cd4 2.Ib3+ [1] Kc5/K:e5
3.Ce4#/Ie6#
2. c. Die Schwalbe 1976
1.G:d5? (2.Kg6 (3.G:d6#)) Ee3!
1… f2 2.Kh4 (3.G:d6#)
1… Ed3 2.Kg4 (3.G:d6#)
1… e3 2.K:f4 (3.G:d6#)
1.C:d5! (2.Kg6 [1,25] (3.Ce7#))
1… f2 2.Kh4 [1,25] (3.Ce7#)
1… Ed3 2.Kg4 [1,25] (3.Ce7#)
1… e3 2.K:f4 [1,25] (3.Ce7#)
6. Vladimir I. Troyanovsky
3. Pr. Vecherny Kiev 1965
1.Gg7? (2.Ig6+ Ke6 3.Ge7#) Gg4!
1… Ed8 2.Cg4+ Gd5/d5 3.G:d5#/Ie5#
1.Gf8! (2.Ig6+ [1] Ke6 3.Ge8#)
1… Gg4 2.C:c4+ [1] Ec5/d5
3.C:d6#/G:d5#
1… Ed8 2.C:f3+ [1] Gd5,d5/Kg4
3.C(:)d4#/Ie6#
1… Ke4 2.Cg4+ [1] Kd3 3.C:f2#
1… de5 2.I:e5+ [1] Kg4/Kg6
3.Ig3#/If5#
Georgy V. Afanasiev
7. Alexandre I. Herbstman
1–2. Pr.= Schackvärlden 1936
8. Evgeny I. Dvizov
2. c. Leninskaya Smena 1965–1966
1.Gf8 Ef2+ 2.Kh5 G:e7 (2… Ge5+
3.Kh6! +-) 3.Kh6 [1] Gf7! (3… Ge8
4.G:e8 Eb5 5.Gf8 Ec5 6.Ce7#)
4.Ga8! [+2=3] 4… Ga7 5.Gb8!
[+0,5=3,5] Gb7 6.Gc8! [+0,5=4] 6…
Gc7 7.Gd8! [+0,5=4,5] 7… Gd7 (7…
Gc8 8.G:c8 Ea6 9.Gf8 +-) 8.Ge8!
[+0,5=5] +-
1.b4+! Kb6!! 2.ba5+ [1]
2… Ka7! 3.Ed5! [+2=3]
3… h1I 4.Cc6+ Ka8 5.Ce7+ Ka7
6.Kc7 [+1=4] 6…Qc1+ 7.Ec6 +- [+1=5]
10. Živko Janevski
11. Hans Moser
Original
1.de5 Ed5 2.Ec5 Gd3#
1.bc3 e3+ 2.Kc5 Cd3#
1.G:e2 Kb3 2.Ge4 Cf3#
1.Ef3 Cc6+ 2.Ke4 ef3#
For each solution: [1,25]
Leonid Makaronez
13. Leonid Lyubashevsky
Probleemblad 2001
1.Ge8! (2.Gb4+ ab4 3.I:b4+ [1,5]
Ke5 4.Ch:g4#)
1… Gh1 2.Gd3+ ed3 3.c3+ [1,5] Ke4
4.Eg6#
1… c5 2.I:d5+ E:d5 3.Cf5+ [1,5] Kc4
4.G:e4#
For all three lines: [5]
16. Heinz Zander
1. hm Schach-Echo 1968
1.Ie4? Ed1!
1… G:e3+ 2.Id3+ G:d3#
1.Ig4! (2.G:b2+ [1] E:b2#,I:b2#)
1… Ef7 2.I:a4+ [1] G:a4#
1… Ed2 2.Ib4+ [1] E:b4#
1… I:b1 2.Ic4+ [1] C:c4#
1… E:e3 2.G:c5+ [1] E:c5#
idee & form 2002
1.I:d1+ Cf3 2.I:b3 e6 3.Kc4 Ce5#
1.Cf4 ef4 2.E:b3 Cf1+ 3.Kc4 Ce3#
1.ba4 d7 2.ab3 C:e4+ 3.Kc4 Cd6#
For each solution: [1,5]
For all three solutions: [5]
9. Yochanan Afek
2.Pr. Israel Ring Tourney 1991 (v)
1.Gd6+ [1] (1.h5+? Kh5: 2.G:d5 Ea2)
1… Cf6+ 2.G:f6+ K:f6 3.hg5+ [+1=2]
3… Kg6 4.Kh8 Ea2 5.c4! [+2=4]
(5.h7? Gh4 6.g8I+ E:g8 7.K:g8
G:h7) E:c4 6.h7 Eg8! 7.hg8C!
[+1=5] (7.hg8I? Gh4+! -+)
7… Ga8 =
12. Anatoly Styopochkin
4. c. Orbit 1999
1.Eh1 Cc7+ 2.Ke4 Ce6 3.Kf3 C:g5+
4.Kg2 Cf3 5.Gg3 Ch4#
1.Kc6 Cc7 2.Kb7 Cb5 3.Ka8 C:a3
4.Eb7 Cb5 5.Ia7 Cc7#
For each solution: [2,5]
Anatoly Khandurin
14. Alexandre Postnikov
3. Pr. Die Schwalbe 19966
1.C7d6+? Ke5!, 1.C5d6+? Kd4!
1.Ef4? (2.C7d6#) E:c5!, 1.Ee3?
(2.C5d6#) E:c5!
1.Ef1! (2.Ed3#)
1… G:f1 2.C7d6+ Ke5 3.Cc4+ Ke4
4.Ef4 [2,5] (5.Ccd6#) E:c5 5.C:d2#
1… Cc1 2.C5d6+ Kd4 3.Cb5+ Ke4
4.Ee3 [2,5] (5.Cbd6#) E:c5 5.Cc3#
17. Valery Surkov
Phénix 1999
1.Ef8? Cb5!
1… f4 2.E:c4+ C:c4 3.If5+ Ce5#
1.Ed8! (2.Ce7+ Ke5 3.Ge4+ [1] fe4#)
1… f4 2.If5+ K:d6 3.Ke4+ [1] C:d2#
1… Gf4 2.e4+ G:e4 3.Ce3+ [1] G:e3#
1… C:c2 2.e4+ fe4+ 3.K:c2+ [1] G:d2#
1… Cb5 2.If7+ K:d6 3.K:c4+ [1]
Cd4#
15. Michael Herzberg
3. hm idee & form 1998–199
1.Gf3! (2.d6#) E:f3 2.Id6 (3.I:c5#)
Ge4 3.Ce3+ E:e3 4.Ie6 (5.d6#) Gd4
5.C:a5+ [5] G:a5 6.b3#
18. Petko A. Petkov
3. c. feenschach 1979
1.Cb5! (2.Cg6+ hg6 3.Eb3+ G:e8
4.Kc4+ Ke6 5.Id5+ [2,5] cd5#)
1… cb5 2.If6+ E:f6 3.Ea2+ Ee7
4.Kb3+ Kd5 5.c4+ [2,5] bc4#
Belgrade Internet Tourneys 2014 – Awards
Group A - #2
Thematic condition:
At least 2 mating moves and 2 black defences are centered around the same potential weakness in the
white position. Black thematic move may have effect of a defence, refutation or a dual-avoidance.
White thematic move may appear as actual mate, or avoided dual. The theme may be presented in a
single phase (as in the Examples 1 & 2) or spread over more phases.
In the Example 1, one thematic weaknesses is unguard of sguare c4; the another one is unguard of
square e6. Thematic defence 1...Rc2: and thematic mate 2.Sc3# both unguard c4, while thematic
defence Rg6 and the thematic mate 2.Sf6# both unguard e6. Thematic white moves appear as avoided
duals (after the key-move), as well as actual mates (after the self-blocks on c4 and e6).
Example 1
Givi Mosiashvili
1. Comm. Rustavsky T. 1985.
£¤£¤£1o¤
¤£¼£¤£¤£
¹¤£¤£¤£X
¤£ª2¤£¤£
£¤£º£¤£¤
n©¤£¤£¤»
£¬G¤£¤Y¤
¤£¤£¤£¤m
Thematic moves underlined:
1.Ce4! ~ 2.Ic6# (2.Cc3? Kc4! 2.Cf6? Ke6!)
1st thematic pair:
1... G:c2 2.Ced2# (2.Cf2? Kc4!) Black unguards c4
1... Cc4 2.Cc3# (2... Kc3?) White safely unguards c4
2nd thematic pair:
1... Gg6 2.Cg5# (2.Cg3? Ke6!) Black unguards e6
1... Ee6 2.Cf6# (2... Ke6?) White safely unguards e6
#2
The first thematic example used line-closing in 3 variations + simple unguard (1…Rc2:). Next example
uses 2 simple unguards (of c5) & 2 unpins (of Re4):
Example 2 – Scheme
o¤£X£¤£¤
1£¼£¤£¤£
£¤2¤£¤m¤
¤£¤£¤£¼G
¹º£XY¤£¤
¤£¤«Z£¤£
£¤£¤£¤£¤
¤£¤£¤£¤£
#2
Thematic moves underlined:
1. If3! ~ 2.Ee8# (2.If6? Ge6! 2.b5? Kc5!)
1st thematic pair:
1... C:b4 2.Gc4# (2.Ee8? Kc5!) Black unguards c5
1... Cc5 2.b5# (2…Kc5?) White safely unguards c5
2nd thematic pair:
1... G:f3 2. E:e4# (2.Ee8? Ge8!) Black unpins Ge4
1... Ce5 2.If6# (2…Ge6?) White safely unpins Ge4
It is important to take care about the identity of thematic weaknesses. The thematic unpin of Re4 is
slightly impure: 1...Rf3: activates Re4 to control e8-c6 diagonal, while 2.Qf6? Re6! activates Re4 to
control f6-c6 orthogonal. Small impurities of this type will be accepted as thematic, but they will
decrease the thematic value.
Award
From the tourney director Darko Šaljić 13 anonymous twomovers were received – on uniformed
diagrams and without the authors’ names. The number may not seem big, but I was more than satisfied
with the produced quality to popularize the unusual and perhaps paradoxical thematic link. From my
point of view, the task asked for a very precise analogy between black and white thematic moves, and
for a lot of imagination to link all 4 (or more) thematic variations.
The set condition produced controversies and different interpretations. I apologize to composers if I
wasn’t clear enough in presenting my expectations. It is a risk I usually take with BIT themes, wishing to
offer more or less original approach to #2 content. On the plus side, the rewarded entries present great
variety of ideas, proving there are many different directions to develop the theme.
When it comes to originality and anticipations, I remain grateful to Grandmaster Wieland Bruch for his
generous search in a quite unknown territory. The BIT 2014 theme wasn’t among the “key-words” in
computer bases, but Wieland managed to recognize some important predecessors. In the first place,
A13 with its ambitious concept of cyclic flight-giving by both black and white, was anticipated by even
better A) (in the Annex). A06 was excluded upon the author’s wish. The overall quality of remaining
compositions was still so high, that I decided to select 9 out of 11.
Valery Shanshin
1st Pr. BIT 2014
Robert Burger
2nd Pr. BIT 2014
Srećko Radović
3rd Pr. BIT 2014
£¤©X£¤mn
¤0º£¤£¤£
»º£¤»J£¬
¤£¤£¤£¤£
»¼£¤£¤£¤
¤Y3©¤W¤£
G¤£¤£¤£¤
¤£Z£¤£¤£
£¤£¤«H£ª
¤£¤£1£¤»
»ª£¤£¤£¤
¤£¤£3£¤Y
YXm¤£¤o¤
¤£º¹¤£¤£
£¤£¤£¤£p
n£¤£¤£¤£
£¤©X£¤£¤
¼£Z£¤£¤m
£¤£¤£¬£¤
¤£¤£¤£¤£
G¼2¤£¤£¼
¬I¤»¤£¤0
£X£¼£¤£¤
¤£¤©¤£n£
#2
1.Cb2+? Kc2!
1.Ce5+? I:f3+!
10+9
1.Ca7! ~ 2.c8I#
1...Gc2 2.Cb2#, 1...Gb2 2.Ce1#
1...Ig7 2.Ce5#,1...e5 2.Cf4#
9+8
#2
1.Eg8? ~, Ee6!2.Cc4#
1.Ed5? ~ 2.d4# (2.Cc4?)
1...Ef5,Gf5! 2.Cf7#, Cd7?
1.Ea2! ~ c4#, 1...Cf6, Gf5, Ef5
2.If6, Cd7, Cf7#
1...G:b4, G:a2, Eg1 2.cb4, Ge4#
1...Eg1 2.If4# (1.If2? ~ 2.Cf7,
1...Ef4 2.Ic5#, 1...Ef3/e6!)
#2
8+10
1... a7~, Gc5 2.Cb6, Gd4#
1.E:a7! ~ 2.Ed4#
1... I:d1, Ic3 2.I:b4#, Ce3#
1... I:a4,Cb5 2.E:d3, I:b3#
1... Cd7, Gd7 2.Eg8, Ic6#
1... Cd5, G:a7 2.Cd6, Ic6#
1... Gc5, Cc2 2.Cb6, Ia6#
1... I:b2 2.E:d3#
1.C:a7? ~,Ic3! 2.I:b3, Ce3?
1st Prize - A12, Valery Shanshin (Russia)
What an ugly key... This was my first impression after seeing the far-away key-piece and the obvious
threat. At the end, after a long research, I found no way to improve any little detail, while preserving
the wonderful thematic content. Three elements unite the play: 1) all 4 mates are executed by the R-S
battery, 2) all 4 mates involve guard of the c4 square, in pairs: twice by Black and twice by White.
Finally, the set-theme comes as the third ingredient, again in pairs: both Black & White cut the a2-c2
line, and both Black & White unpin the BQ. Each thematic pair involves one complex variation, where
black thematic move produces 3 different effects: 1…Rb2 cuts a2-d2 to prevent the threat, while in the
same time it opens line toward c4 and cuts the a2-c2 to produce the thematic dual-avoidance; 1…e5
unpins BQ to defeat the threat through f6-c6 line, while in the same time it opens line toward c4 and
activates the f6-f3 line to produce the thematic dual-avoidance.
The other two variations are slightly less impressive: 1…Rc2 cuts the a2-d2 to defend against the threat,
while making a self-block to allow the safe thematic white interference on a2-c2 line; 1…Qg7 pins WPc7
to defend, while removing BQ from f6-f3 line to allow the safe thematic unpin of BQ. The common
feature is white guard of the c4 square.
This was the only entry in the tourney to combine the most complex motives (unpin + line = closing)
and to use dual-avoidance as the most subtle result of the Black thematic moves. There are no “black
duals”, or any distracting play. What would be the next goal? A better key, perhaps 3 pairs, or a multi
phase arrangement.
2nd Prize - A02, Robert Burger (USA)
I wasn’t expecting this kind of approach. The composer found a controversial interpretation of the settheme to be centered around unguard of a single square – f4. Besides, thematic mates appear only as
the threats – an easier way to deal with the theme, leading us to the field of White Line combinations.
However, to even greater surprise of mine, there was no anticipation to this triple A theme content,
with 3 different threats on one line + 3 different defences on another. When you add the White
Correction form, the excellent key-move, and the airy construction, this is quite an impressive
composition, and I’m glad the author took his own way to create it.
3rd Prize - A05, Srećko Radović (Serbia)
Here we have a record number of not less than 4 thematic pairs in a single phase. Two pairs are
absolutely pure: unguard of c3 and b5 by both Black & White. The other two, based on unguard of c5
and d5, involve a small blemish in each pair: 1…Ra7: unguards not only c5, but d4, too, while 1…Sd7 is
the least thematic variation: its primary effect is to close the mating line d8-d4, not to close the d8-d5
line. Even so, this is a great thematic achievement in such a short time to compose, and an inspiration
for the followers.
4th Prize - A01, Živko Janevski (Macedonia)
Who would say the actual play of this #2 had no anticipation? Two pairs of Black & White interferences
create a pleasing picture, but that’s only the final accord. In the form of ever welcome White
Correction, composer magically turned all 4 thematic defences into refutations of the tries, completing
a rich and harmonious content in a seemingly effortless construction. The only drawback is thematic
impurity of the black defences 1…Sb2 and 1…Sf5. They are only visually related to a1-c3 and h5-d5 lines;
their primary effect is directed toward b5 square. Otherwise, this composition would be on the top of
the award.
5th Prize - A04, Daniel Wirajaya (Indonesia)
At the beginning this composition was out of my sight. The different nature of black thematic moves
and their effects clouded the complex and bold combination of three different thematic pairs: unguards
of d4, e3 and d3. In the try, the seemingly impure 1…Sd7 (unguards d4 + d3) is purely thematic when
you consider dual-avoiding effect of unguarding d4: 2.Qc6? Kd4! In the set-play, 1…Rd4 brings another
thematic dual-avoidance: 2.Bf3? Ke3! In the solution, both avoided moves reappear as the changed
mates. Variation 1…Be3 2.Sg3 introduces two thematic effects: closing h3-d3 line and allowing closure
of h3-e3. The only weak point is the thematic refutation 1…Qh3:!, unguarding both e3 and f3. Was it
worth adding a WP on g2? Perhaps yes, for it would introduce the try 1.Sc2? Be3! to stress the
corrective effect of the key-move. Even with lack of clarity, this is the most dynamic rendering of the
tourney, in an excellent construction.
Živko Janevski
4 Pr. BIT 2014
Daniel Wirajaya
5th Pr. BIT 2014
Emanuel Navon & Paz Einat
1st HM BIT 2014
£¤£X£¤£¤
¤0n£¤£¤©
G¬£¤£¼£J
¤£¼£¤£¤£
£¤Yº2¤¹¤
¤£¼£ª£¤W
£¤£¤m¤£¤
¤£¤£¤£p£
£¤£¤£¤£¤
¤0º£¼£¤£
»¼¹¤¹¼£¤
X©p2¤¹¤£
£º£¼Y¼¹¤
¤¹H£¤£¤£
£¤£¤¹¤mn
¤£¤W¤£¤£
th
£Z£¤£¤£¤
¤£¤£¬£¤£
£¼£º£¤£¤
¼£ª£¤£¤G
£¤2º£¤W¤
1£¤£¤£¤o
£¤£¤¹¤£¤
nW¤«¤£¤£
#2
9+7
1...bc5 2.I:c5 #, 1.C~? ~
2.Ib5#(A) Cd5!(a), Cc3!(b)
1.Ca4? ~, Cd5!(a) 2.Ib5#(A)
1...Cc3(b), Cf5(c), Cb2(d), b5
2.Cab2, If7, Gc1,Ic5#
1.Cd7? ~, Cc3!(b) Ib5#(A)
1...Cd5(a), Cf5(c), Cb2(d), b5
2.C7e5, If7, Gc1,Ic5#
1.Ce4? ~,Cb2!(d) 2.Ib5#(A),
2.Cd2#(B), 1...Cf5 2.If7#
1...Cd5(a), Cc3(b) 2.Cd2#
1.Cb3? ~, Cf5!(c) 2.Cd2#(B)
1...Cb2 2.Gc1#
1.Cd3! ~ 2.Ib5#(A),,1...Cd5(a),
Cc3(b), Cf5(c),Cb2(d), b5
2.C3e5, C3b2, If7,Gc1, Ic5#(C)
#2
10+8
#2
15+9
1. d:c5? ~, I:h3!2. Ed3#
1. ... Cd7/d5, Gd4, I:e3 2.I:c4,
Ge8, C:f6#
1. Ie3(Id3)? ~, ab! 2.I:e4#
1... f3[a],:e3 2.Cc3[A]#
1... E:b4, Ke5 2.I:d4, I:e4 #
1. Cf5! ~ 2. Ed3#
1. ... Ee3, G:d4,Cd7 2. Cg3,
Ef3, Ic6# 1. ... I:h3/e3/d2
2.C:f6#
1. C:d4! ~ 2. Cc2 (Cf3,Cdb5?)#
1... f3[a] 2.Ic4[B]#
1... b5,ba 2.I:c5#
1... Kd6 2.Cdb5(Cc2?)#
1... Ke5 2.Cf3(Cc2?)#
1st Hon. Mention - A03, Emanuel Navon & Paz Einat (Israel)
The most original creation. Once again, the solution itself had no anticipation – a curious success of the
tourney. Thanks to the Schiffmann-related dual avoidance, the front piece of the white battery has only
one square to avoid unpinning. However, when BK unpins his pieces, WS must choose the previously
forbidden squares. Now these “safe unpinnings” turn into double checks, the only way to deal with
unpinned pieces! This pair alone fulfils the thematic condition, but there is another pair of unpinning by
BPs, easily incorporated. Only a single detail kept the composition bellow the Prize level: while 1…Ke5
unpins BR only, 1…Kd6 unpins both BB & BR.
There is also a subtler question of the intended 1.Qd3(Qe3)? try. It really adds an element related to
the theme – W&Bl unguard of d6, but the price was high: alternative first moves (Qd3/Qe3), alternative
black defences (b5/ba5; f3/fe3), and a crude refutation. As a single-phase problem, it would have got a
freedom to avoid all these impurities, while adding something else, for instance a convincing set-play,
as in A03v (Annex).
Michel Caillaud
2nd HM BIT 2014
Miodrag Radomirović
1st Comm. BIT 2014
£¤o¤£¤£¤
¤£¤£¤£¼0
W¤£¤£¤£¤
¤£¤£¼2¤£
m¤©H©¤£¤
¤£p£¤£¤¹
£¤£¤£¤£¤
¤£n£¤YZ£
£¤£1£¤£¤
¤£¼£X£p£
£¤£¤£¤£¤
ª»¼£¤¹ª£
»¤¹3£¤£¤
¤£¤£¤£¤G
£¤£º£¤m¤
¤o¤«¤£¤£
#2
8+7
1.Id3? ~, Ed2! 2.Cg3#
1...Gf4, G:c1 2.Ce3, If3#
1...Ee6, E:a6 2.Ccd6, Ed7#
1.Ec2! ~ 2.Cg3#
1...Gf4, G:c1 2.Ce3, If2#
1...Ee6, E:a6 2.Ccd6, Id7#
1...Ed2 2.I:e5#
#2
9+8
2
nd
Nikola Stolev
Comm. BIT 2014
m¤o¤£n£¤
¤£¤£¤£¤£
£¤£¼»¤£¤
¤£¤£3£¼«
£¤£ª£¤£p
¤£¤£1£¼G
£¤£¤£¤£¤
¤£¤£¤W¤£
#2
6+8
1...Ed3, Ce3 2.Cf3, I:e3#
1.Ed5? ~, Ce3, b:c4!
2.Cc6, I:e3#
1.Ee4? ~, E:e4, Ee5!
2.Cf3, G:e4#
1.Gf7? ~, g4! 2.Cf3#[C]
1.Ig2? ~, Eb7! 2.Cc6/Ie4#
[A/B] 1... Cf4,Cf6,Ed7 2.Eg7,
Cc6, Ie4#
1.Eg2? ~,Ed7! 2.Cc6#[A]
1.Ia3! ~, b:c4, Ee5
2.Cf3, Cc6, Ce6#
1...Cc3, Ee4 2.I:c3, G:e4#
1.Ig4! ~ 2.Ie4#[B]
1... d5,Cf6 2.Cc6[A], Cf3[C]#
1... Cf4,Eb7 2.Eg7, I:e6#
2nd Hon. Mention - A08, Michel Caillaud (France)
A very harmonious Orthogonal/Diagonal Echo, supported by a spontaneously added try to change 2
mates in thematic variations. This airy composition with perfect geometry would have been placed
much higher if this was an informal tourney. Namely, there is a thematic impurity of both unguards by
Black: 1…Ba6: unguards not only e6, but f6, too, while 1…Rc1: unguards f4 + g5. Multiple defending
effects wouldn’t distract in the case of dual-avoiding thematic effects, like in A12.
1st Commendation - A11, Miodrag Radomirović (Serbia)
Here we have thematic unguards of two squares: d5 and e4, against the single white mating move:
Sf3#. As in A02, this is an easier and less original way, but the thematic content extends to
spontaneously added tries, where black thematic moves serve as refutations. The play is not very
balanced, but it still has its charm.
2nd Commendation - A07, Nikola Stolev (Macedonia)
Two pairs of thematic interferences in a very light position, with no WPs. Black thematic interferences
are only formally thematic, and mixed with other purposes, but the tries skillfully extend the content.
They form the Barnes theme, and introduce some good refutations.
Annex
A)
nd
Nils G.G. van Dijk
A03v
2 HM Deutsche Schachztng 1961
I¤m¤«n£¤
¼£¤W¤£¤£
»ª2p»¤£¤
¤£ºW¼£¤£
o¤£¼£¤£¤
ª»¤£¤£¤£
£¤£¤G¤£¤
¤0¤£¤£¤£
#2
9+11
1.Ie4? ~,Cf6! 2.G:e5#
1...E:c5,e:d5 2.G5d6, I:d5#
1.Ic4? ~,Eb5! 2.I:a4#
1...E:c5,e:d5 2.I:c5, I:d5#
1.I:a6! ~ 2.I:a4#
1...E:c5,e:d5, 2.G:c5, C:a4#
1...a:b6,Eb5 2.I:a8, I:b5#
£¤0¤©¤£¤
¤£¤£¤»¤£
£¤»º£º£¤
X£ªo3£º»
£¤¹¤»Z»º
¤£ºG¤£¤m
£¤£¤£º£n
¤£¤£X£¤£
#2
15+8
1... E~, Ee6+ 2.I:e4, Cd7#
1.C:e4! ~ 2.Cd2#
1... g3, Kf5, Ke6, c5
2.Id4, Cg3, Cc5, I:d5#
I wish to thank all participants of this thematic experiment, and sincerely congratulate to the winners!
Marjan Kovačević,
International judge
Group B - h#2
Thematic condition:
Reciprocal change of mates (W2) after the same pairs of first black moves (B1), according to the
following scheme:
(1)
1. a W1 2.B2 A#,
(3)
1. a W1 2.B2 B#,
(2)
1. b W1 2.B2 B#,
(4)
1. b W1 2.B2 A#
Here, a & b present concrete B1 moves, A & B present concrete W2 mates, while W1 & B2 could be any
W1 & B2 moves. The following combinations of phases are possible:


(1)&(2) tries + (3)&(4) solutions = Example 1,
(1) try + (4) solution in a) & (2) try + (3) solution in b), or
(1) try + (3) solution in a) & (2) try + (4) solution in b),
(1)&(2) solutions in a) + (3)&(4) solutions in b) = Examples 2 and 3.


Both thematic tries should be based on the same type of weakness (obstruction, pin, direct guard, check,
lack of tempo, etc.)
Examples
Borislav Gadjanski
Yosi Retter
Yeshayahu Blaustein
1. HM MatPlus 2007.
9. Pl Israel - G.Britain 1987-89.
1. Pr Israel Ring T. 1970.
£¤£¤£¤£¤
¤£¤0¤«¤£
£¤»H£ª£¤
¤»ZI¤£¤£
£¤£3£¼¹¤
¤»¼o¤m¤£
£¤£Z£¼»¤
¤£p£¤£¤£
£¤£¤£¤£¤
¼£¤£¤£¤£
¹X£¤£¤¹¤
¤£¼©¤£¤£
»¤¹¤£¤£¤
¼£¤£¤£ª¹
£n£¤¹¼2¤
¤0¤£¤£¤W
£¤£¤£¤£¤
¤£¤©p£¤£
m¤£¼£¼£¤
¤£ºo¤£¤«
«¤£3©¤»¤
1£¼£¤£ºY
£¤Y¼£º£J
¤£¤£¤£¤£
h#2
h#2
h#2
2111
2111
b) wPf2
2111
b) wKa3->c7
Example 1:
(1) 1.Ke3[a] Ch5?! 2.I~?(I:h5??) I:f4#[A], (3) 1.Ke3[a] Ed1! 2.If3! I:c5#[B],
(2) 1.Kc4[b] Ce4?! 2.I~?(I:e4??) I:c5#[B], (4) 1.Kc4[b] Ee2! 2.Ih5! I:f4#[A]
Tries: BQ obstructed by WSf6
Example 2: a) 1.ab2 [a] Gb3 2.a3 Cf4# [A], 1.ab6 [b] Ee5 2.b5 Ce3# [B]
b) 1.ab2 [a] Gf6 2.a3 Ce3# [B], 1.ab6 [b] Ed4 2.b5 Cf4# [A]
Tempo-play
Example 3: a) 1.C:c5 [a] C:c3 2.Ce4 Ce2# [A] , 1.C:g3 [b] C:d6 2.Ce4 Cf5# [B]
Tries: 1.C:c5? [a] C:d6 2.Ce4 Cf5#?? [B], 1.C:g3? [b] C:c3 2.Ce4 Ce2#?? [A]
Tries: Pinning of WS
b) 1.C:c5 [a] C:d6 2.Ce4 Cf5# [B], 1.C:g3 [b] C:c3 2.Ce4 Ce2# [A]
The pinning tries in b) are the solutions from a).
Each twin alone is thematic: each twin contains 2 solutions + 2 thematic tries.
Award
uite a small helpmate production told me the set theme was obviously a demanding one. From the
Q
tourney director Darko Šaljić I received 10 anonimous compositions. Most of them reduced the set
theme to dual-avodiance in W2 mating move. No rendering of extra quality appeared. I decided to be
more tolerant and to include 9 problems in the award, in spite of the fact that most of them do not
treat the theme in the way I had expected them to do. The only excluded problem B09 (Ka4/Ke4) had
an anticipation (M.Nagnibida&K.Widlert, Springaren 1998 (v), FEN: 8/1p6/pP6/p1B2P2/K1k2P1p/5q1R
/2r1p1B1/3b4, h#2, b: Bc5->c3). Besides, there was an unpleasant dual in the try: 1... Bf7 2. Kf4? B:g6#
I decided to rank the entries in the following order:
Dragan Stojnić
1st Pr. BIT 2014
Miodrag Mladenović
2nd Pr. BIT 2014
Menachem Witztum
1st HM BIT 2014
£¤£¤£¤£¤
¤£º»n£¤£
£Z¹¬»ºo¤
¤»¤I¬2¤£
£¼»º»º»¤
¤£p£X£º£
£¤£¤£¤£¤
¤£¤£¤£¤0
£¤£1£¤£¤
Z£¤»¼£¤£
£¤£¤£¼£ª
¤£n£¤£p£
£¤©¼¹3£¤
¤£¤£¤»¼£
£¤£¤£¤£¤
J£¤Y¤£¤£
£¤£Z£¤£¤
¤£¤£¤£¤£
£¼»¤£¤£¤
¤»¤£¼Yp£
oº¹¤£¤»º
¤£º2¬IXW
£º£¤£¤£1
¤£¤«¤£¤G
h#2
2111
9+14
1.I:c6 c8C? 2.I~?? C:d6#
1.I:d4 G:e4? 2.I~?? G:e5#
1.I:c6,G:e4! 2.I:c7!(I~?),G:e5#
1.I:d4,c8C! 2.I:e3!(I~?),C:d6#
h#2
2111
b)Kd8->g7
5+11
a)1.f5(a) E:d4 2.f:e4 Ee3#(A)
1.f5(a)? E:e7 2.f:e4 Ed6#(B)?
1.d5(b) E:e7 2.d:e4 Ed6#(B)
1.d5(b)? E:d4 2.d:e4 Ee3(A)?
b)1.f5(a) E:e7 2.f:e4 E:d6#(B)
1.f5(a)? E:d4 2.f:e4 Ee3(A)?
1.d5 E:d4 2.d:e4 Ee3#(A)
1.d5(a)? E:e7 2.d:e4 Ed6#(B)?
h#2
2111
b)Rh3->b5
9+13
a)
1.Ie4 (a) Gg2 2.Gf1 I:f1# (A)
1.Cc2 (b) G:g4 2.Ie3 I:d1# (B)
b)
1.Ie4 (a) Gc5 2.Eb5 I:d1# (B)
1.Cc2 (b) Ge5 2.Ed2 If1# (A)
1st Prize - B05, Dragan Stojnić (Serbia)
When BQ departs, White has two possible mating sequences: 1. ... c8S 2. ... S:d6# (A) & 1. ... R: e4 2. ...
R:e5# (B) There are two escapes for BQ: 1. Q:c6 (a) & 1.Q:d4 (b). Each B1 move initiate a harmful
opening of a black line to eliminate one of the mates. There is a well incorporated passive Zilahi in B2,
to significantly increase the quality of the composition.
2nd Prize - B01, Miodrag Mladenović (Serbia)
The mechanism looks very simmilar to the Example 3 from the announcement (Yeshayahu Blaustein).
The difference is in the type of black thematic pieces – pawns instead of knights. This change helped the
whole idea to be presented in a more obvious way, and saved 4 units (2 white & 2 black). In spite of the
lack of originality, this problem deserves a Prize.
1st Hon. Mention - B03, Menachem Witztum (Israel)
Black half-pin could be a good motive for a reciprocal change. However, the unlucky twinning
mechanism and the unballanced strategy of phases reduce the quality and make impresion the best
form hasn’t been found yet. It is the difficulty of the idea that made me rank this entry on the third
place.
Srećko Radović
2 HM BIT 2014
Živko Janevski
3 HM BIT 2014
Ivo Tominić
1 Comm BIT 2014
£¤£¤£¤£¤
n£¤£¤m¤£
»¼2¤»¤£¤
¤£¤£¤£¤£
£¬Y¤»¤£¤
¤G¬£¤£¤£
oZ£¼£1£¤
¤£¤£¤£¤£
Y¤£¤G1£¤
¬»¤£¼£¤£
£¤£¤£¼£¤
¤£p£3£¬£
£¼£¤£¤£¤
¤£¤£¤£¤o
m¤£¤£¤£¤
¤£¤W¤£¤£
£¤£¤W¤£¤
¤£¤£ª£¤£
£¤£¤£¤£¤
¤Y¤»¤£¤£
o¤£¤2¤Y¤
¤£¤£¤£¤I
£¼£¤£¤£¤
¤0¤£¤£X£
nd
h#2
2111
rd
4+11
h#2
2111
st
4+10
1.Cc2!(a) I:b6(A)+ 2.Kd5 I:e6(B)# 1.Ec8(a) Ed5 2.Kd6 I:e7#(A)
1.Gd4!(b) I:e6(B)+ 2.Kc5 I:b6(A)# 1.Ec8(a) Gd5 2.Ke6 Id7#(B)?
3.E:d7!
1.Cc2(a) E:e6? 2.Gc2 I:b6(A) G:b6! 1.Cc8(b) Gd5+ 2.Ke6 Id7#(B)
1.Gd4(b) E:b6? 2.Kd6 I:e6(B) E:e6! 1.Cc8(b) Ed5? 2.Kd6 I:e7#(A)?
3.C:e7!
1.Cbd5? I:b6(A)+? 2.Kd5??
1.Gc5? I:e6(B)+? 2.Kc5??
h#2
2111
b)Ke4->d4
4+7
a) 1.Gb3 (a) Gf1 2.Gd3 Cc6#(A)
[Cf5(B)?]
1.Gg3 (b) Gf1 2.Gd3 Cf5#(B)
[Cc6(A)?]
b) 1.Gb3 (a) Gc1 2.Gd3 Cf5#(B)
[Cc6(A)?]
1.Gg3 (b) Gc1 2. Gd3 Cc6#(A)
[Cf5(B)?]
2nd Hon. Mention - B04, Srećko Radović (Serbia)
One thematic try is based on a nice black obstruction of BR by BS. Unfortunatelly, the other thematic
try is much simpler. With two obstructions of this type this problem would have been much higher. On
the other hand, two additional attempts with self-obstructions enrich the content: 1.Sbd5? Qb6:(A)+?
2.Kd5?? 1.Rc5? Q:e6(B)+? 2.Kc5??
3rd Hon. Mention - B02, Živko Janevski (Macedonia)
Black moves 1.Bc8(a) and 1.Sc8(b) unpin WQ and diferentiate white Grimshaw on d5 and mates 2. ...
Qd7#(A) and 2. ... Q:e7#(B) The strategy isn’t pure, since BSa7 and BBh3 have different additional roles.
Namely, BBh3 has the same role in one phase as BBc5 in another, while BSa7 remains passive in one
phase.
1st Commendation - B10, Ivo Tominić (Croatia)
Thanks to different positions of BK in twins, the theme is doubled, but as the dual avoidance in the
matin moves. The reciprocal change is based on the change from direct battery to indirect one.
Nikola Stolev
2 Comm. BIT 2014
Mihajlo Milanović
3rd Comm. BIT 2014
Ingemar Lind
4 Comm. BIT 2014
£¤£¤£p£¤
¤£¤0¤£¤£
£¤£¬£¤£¤
¤£¤»¤»¤Y
£¤«3¹¤£¤
¤£¤£¤£X£
£¤¹¤£¤£¤
¤£¤£¤£¤£
£¤£¤£¤£¤
¤£ª«¤£¤£
£¤»¤£¤£¤
¤£¤£¤£¤£
£¤2¤£¤£¤
1£¼£¤£¤£
£¤£¤£¤£¤
¤oX£¬£¤£
£¤£J£3£¤
¤0¤¹¤£¤£
£¤«¤Y¼»ª
¤£¤£¤£¤£
£¤£º£p£¤
¤£¤£¼»Z£
£¤£¤£¤£¤
¤o¤£¤£¤£
nd
h#2
2111
4+7
1.fe4-a, Kc6 2.Ge5 c3# A
1.fe4-a, Kc6 2.Ge5 Gd3#? B
1.Ce4:-b, Ke6 2.Ec5 Gd3# B
1.Ce4:-b, Ke6 2.Ec5 c3#? A
h#2
2111
th
3+6
1.Ed3(a) G:e1 2.c5 Ge4#?? A
1.Ed3(a) Gb1 2.Cc5(c5?) Gb4# B
1.Cd3(b) G:b1 2.Cc5 Gb4#?? B
1.Cd3(b) Ge1 2.c5(Cc5?) Ge4# A
h#2
2111
b)Kf8<->Bf4
4+11
a)
1.Ia5(a) d8I+ 2.Ge8 I:f6#(A)
1.Ie8(b) d8C 2.Ce7 C:e6#(B)
b)
1.Ia5(a) d8C 2.Ee4 C:e6#(B)
1.Ie8(b) d8I+ 2.Ge4 I:f6#(A)
2nd Commendation - B04, Nikola Stolev (Macedonia)
The theme is presented in an elegant and precise manner, with a very pure anti-dual play. To allow A:
2.c3# or B: 2.Rd3#, black must block e4 and c5 or e5, while WK controls the missing square. The B1
moves directly eliminate one of the potential mates, and in the same time they open black lines to
differentiate WK moves and self-blocks.
3rd Commendation - B08, Mihajlo Milanović (Serbia)
Self-blocks on d3 and c5 virtually allow two mates: 2.Re4#(A) and 2.Rb4(B), but each blocking piece on
d3 directly guards one of the mates. The same strategic element (direct guard) differentiate the selfblock on c5. The move order is nicelly determined by the bicolour Umnov effects.
4th Commendation - B07, Ingemar Lind (Sweden)
The complex twinning interchange of BKf8 & BBf4 annihilates the complexity of the theme, but the
correct reciprocal change of mates made me keep this problem in the award.
Borislav Gadjanski
Group C – Ser-h#3 with 3 solutions
Examples:
These are all 12 examples of the set condition found in the WinChloe, YACPDB and PDB bases:
Laurent JOUDON
Nils Adrian BAKKE
Carl-Erik LIND
1.Pr.Thémes-64 1986-87
feenschach 1972
feenschach 1973
Moultings 1991
£¤£¤£¤£¤
¤£¤©¤£¤£
£¼Wn£¤£¤
¤¹¤£ª£¤£
£¤£3»¤¹¤
¤£¤£¤£X£
m1£¤»¤£¤
¤£¤£¤£¤£
£¤£¤0¤£¤
¤£¤£¤£¤£
£¤£¤£¤GX
X£¤£¤£¤£
£¤£3£¤£Z
¤«¬£¤£¤£
£¤£¤£¤£¤
¤£¤£¤£¤£
£¤£ª£¤£1
¤£¤£¤£¤£
Y3£¤£¤£¤
¤«¤£¤£¤£
£¤£¤£¤£¤
¤£¤£¤£¤£
£¤£¤£¤£¤
¤W¤£¤£¤m
£¤W¤£¤£Z
¤£¤£¤£¤£
»¤£¤£¤£¤
¤2º£¤£¤o
»¤W¤I¤£¤
¤£¤¹¤£¼0
£¤£n¹¤£¤
¤£¤£¤m¤£
sh#3
sh#3
sh#3
sh#3
3.1.1.1
1.e1R 2.Rc1 3.Rxc6 Sxc6#
1.e1B 2.Bb4 3.Bxd6 Rxd6#
1.e1S 2.Sf3 3.Sxe5 Bxe5#
3.1.1.1
1.Sb5 2.Kc5 3.Rc4 Qd6#
1.Sc5 2.Kd5 3.Rd4 Qe6#
1.Sd5 2.Ke5 3.Re4 Qf6#
3.1.1.1
1.Ka5 2.Sc3 3.Sa4 Sb7#
1.Ka7 2.Sc7 3.Sa8 Rb7#
1.Ra5 2.Ka6 3.Sa7 Bb7#
Chris FEATHER
3.1.1.1
1.Qxc4 2.Qxd3 3.Qf3 exf3#
1.Qxe2 2.Qe4 3.Qxc4 dxc4#
1.Qxd3 2.Qxe2 3.Qg4+ Rxg4#
Chris FEATHER
Tode ILIEVSKI
Erkki A. WIRTANEN
Ladislav SALAI Sr
Hatchings 1995
feenschach 1997
4.Pr 127TT BCF 1970-71
diagrammes 1983
£¤£¤£¤£¤
¤£¤0¤£¤£
£¤£¤£¤£¤
¤£¤£¤£p£
»¤£¤£3©¤
¼£¼£¤£¤¹
Y¬£¤£¤£¤
¤Y¤£H£¤£
£¤£¤£¤£¤
¤£¤£¤£¤£
£¤£¤£¤£¤
¤£¤£¤£¤£
£¤£¤£¤£¤
H£¤£¤£¤£
0¤£¤2J£¤
¤£¤£¤£ZW
£¤©¤£¤£¤
¤£¤«¤£¤£
£º£¤»n£¤
¤¹J2ZY¼£
£¤o¤»¤£¤
¤£¤£¤¹ª£
£¤£¤¹¤£¤
¤£¤£¤0¤£
£¤£¤0¤£¤
¤£¤£¤£¤£
£¤£¤£¤£¤
¤£¤£¤£¤£
£ªG¤£¤£¤
¤£¤£¤£¤£
»¤£¤£¤£¤
¤£¤2¤£¤£
sh#3
sh#3
3.1.1.1
1.Sc4 2.Re2 3.Re4 Qf2#
1.Sd1 2.Rf2 3.Rf3 Qe5#
1.Sd3 2.Rb5 3.Rf5 Qe3#
3.1.1.1
1.Rc1 2.Qe1 3.Kd1 Qd3#
1.Rd1 2.Qf1 3.Ke1 Qe3#
1.Re1 2.Qg1 3.Kf1 Qf3#
sh#3
3.1.1.1
1.g4 2.Rh5 3.Reg5 fxe4#
1.exf3 2.Re3 3.Rd3 e4#
1.Qxc8 2.Kd6 3.Rd5 Sxe4#
Gideon HUSSERL
Zvi ROTH
sh#3
3.1.1.1
1.a1R 2.Ra2 3.Rd2 Qf1#
1.a1B 2.Bc3 3.Be1 Qc2#
1.a1S 2.Sc2 3.Kc1 Qxc2 #
János CSAK
Arno TUNGLER
1.hm Problem-Echo 2007
5.cm Die Schwalbe 1979(v)
1.hm Die Schwalbe 1978
feenschach 1981
£¤£¤£¤£¤
¤£¤£¤£¤£
£¤£¤£¤£¤
¤£¤£¤£¼£
£¤£¤£¤»H
¤»¼£¤£X£
»¤¹¤£¤£º
X£¤£1£¤2
£¤£¤oZ£¤
¤£¤£¤£¤«
£¤£¤£¤£¤
¤£¤£¤£nW
£¤£¤£ª£º
¤£¤£¤m3©
£¤£¤0¤£¼
¤£¤£¤£¤£
£¤£¤G¤£¤
¤£¤£¤£¤£
£¤£1£¤£¤
¤£º£¤©¤£
£¤2º£¤£¤
º»¼£¤£¤£
£X£X£¤£¤
¤£¤£ª£¤£
£¤£¤£¤£¤
¤£¤£¤£¤£
£¤£¤£¤£¤
¤£¤£¤£¤£
£¤£¤£¤£¤
¤£¼»¤»¤£
£¤£¤£¤»¼
X£¤£1£3©
sh#3*
sh#3
sh#3*
sh#3*
3.1.1.1
1... 0-0-0#/Kf2#/Ke2#
1.b2 2.b1S 3.Sa3 0-0-0#
1.gxh4 2.hxg3 3.gxh2 Kf2#
1.bxc2 2.c1S 3.Se2 Kxe2#
3.1.1.1
3.1.1.1
1.Sxg5 2.Sxf3 3.Sxh4 Rg5# 1...Se3#/Qe2#/Qa4#
1.Rxf4 2.Rxh4 3.Rf4 Bxf4# 1.cxb2 2.b1S 3.Sc3 Se3#
1.Bxh5 2.Bg4 3.Bxh3 Sh5# 1.cxd2 2.dxe1B 3.Bc3 Qe2#
2.c1R 3.Rc3 Qa4#
Boris GELPERNAS
3.1.1.1
1... 0-0-0#
1.c2 2.c1B 3.Bd2+ Kxd2#
1.Kxh1 2.g1B 3.Bf2+ Kxf2#
1.gxh1S 2.Sf2 3.Kh1 Kxf2#
This experimental tourney inspired 32 entries with much more quality and quantity than we had
expected! These facts made an unexpected trouble of how to eliminate some good and interesting
compositions of the composers who didn’t participate in BPCF, to allow easier solving in 2 hours. We
selected 27 problems, and the best solvers proved this was not too much for them!
Another success of the tourney was attracting three very young solvers (age 15, 13 and 10!) to compose
their first problems. And vice-versa, some composers were motivated to try their hands on solving.
When the solving was over, the more complex entries were presented and explained on the
demonstration board. Then, all the solvers gave their marks for quality, from 1 to 10, to each
annonimous composition. You could find all the marks in the separate crosstable. Since marking was
done by all solvers – some of them unexperienced as composers or judges – we discovered the mistake
to be corrected next time: it would be better to exclude at least one lowest and one highest mark for
each composition. Here is the complete order, according to average marks:
Borislav Gadjanski
1st Pl. BIT 2014
Miodrag Mladenović
2nd Pl. BIT 2014
Paz Einat
3 Pl. BIT 2014
£¤£¤£Z£p
¤£¤W¤£¤0
£¤£¤£¤m¤
¤£¤oJ«¤£
£¤£¤£¼£¤
ª£¼2¤«¤W
£¤£¼»¤£¤
¤£¤£¤£¤Y
£¤£¤£¤£H
¤»X£X£¤£
£¼£3¹¤£¤
¤¹¤»¤»¤£
£¤£¤£¤»¤
¤£¼£1o¤Y
£¤»Z£¬£¼
¤£p£¤£J£
£¤£¤£¤£¤
¤»¼o¼£¤£
£H»¤£¤W¤
¤£¤2¤»¤£
£¤£¤£¤«Z
¤£¤£¤£n£
0p£¤£Z«¤
¤£¤£X£¤I
sh#3
3.1.1.1
5+12
1.Qd4 2.Be4 3.Sh6 R:f3#
1.Qe3 2.Sd4 3.Bf7 B:f5#
1.Qe4 2.Se3 3.Se5 R:d5#
sh#3
3.1.1.1
rd
6+15
1.Qg3 2.Se4 3.Qe5 Qd8#
1.Rh6 2.Be4 3.R:e6 Red7#
1.Ba3 2.Rd4 3.Bc5 Rcd7#
sh#3
3.1.1.1
5+13
1.Sf4 2.Qe4 3.Ke5 Qc5#
1.Sf6 2.Re4 3.Ke6 Qb3#
1.Rf4 2.Bf6 3.Kd6 Qd4#
Nebojša B. Joksimović
4th Pl. BIT 2014
Ivo Tominić
5 Pl. BIT 2014
Franz Pachl
6 Pl. BIT 2014
£¤£¤£¤£¤
¤«¤£Z£¤£
£n£¤«ª£¤
¤£J£¤»¤G
0ª£3£º£¤
¤£¤¹p£¤£
£¤£¼£¤£¤
¤£¤£¤£¤£
£¤£¤£¤£3
¼»¤¹¤£¤»
£¤o¤£º£¤
¬I¼£¤£¤£
WHW¤»¤£¤
¤»¤£¤£¤£
£¤£¤0¤£¤
¤£¤Y¤£¤£
£¤£¤£¤£¤
¤£¤£¤£J£
£¤Y¤£¤£¤
¤£ª2¤o¤£
£¤£nW¤£¤
¤£¤£¼£¤£
£º£¤£¤£1
¤£¤£H£¤£
sh#3
3.1.1.1
1.Bf2 2.Ke3 3.Qd4 Sd5#
1.B:f4 2.Ke5 3.Qd6 Sg4#
1.Q:b6 2.Kc5 3.Bd4 Se4#
th
7+8
sh#3
3.1.1.1
1.Q:a4 2.b5 3.b:c4 Qb8#
1.S:c4 2.a5 3.a:b4 Ra8#
1.c:b4 2.Qf5 3.B:a4 Rc8#
th
6+11
sh#3
3.1.1.1
1.R:c5 2.K:e4 3.Rd5 Q:e3#
1.B:e4 2.K:d4 3.Bd5 Qc3#
1.Q:d4 2.K:c5 3.Qd5 Qb4#
6+5
Jorma Paavilainen
7th Pl. BIT 2014
Dragan Stojnić
8th Pl. BIT 2014
Nikola Predrag
9th Pl. BIT 2014
0¤£¤£¤£¤
H£¤£º£¤£
£º£¤£¤m¤
¤£¤£¤£¬£
¹º£¤£¤£p
¬¹3£¤¹¤£
Y¤£¼£Z»¤
¤W¤£¤£Jo
£¤£¤£¤£¤
¤£¤£¤£¤£
£¤£¤W¤£¤
¤£¤«¤o¤£
0¤£¼£º£¤
¤£¼2ª©º£
£¤»º£¤£¤
¤£pI¬£¤£
£¤o¤Yp£¤
¤£¼¹J£¤£
£¤£¤2¤£¤
¤£¤£ª£¼£
£¤£¤0¤£¤
¤£¤£¤£¤£
£¤£¤£¤£¤
¤£¤£¤£¤£
sh#3
3.1.1.1
10+10
1.Rf1(R~?) 2.Q:b6 3.Q:b4 Qe3#
1.Sb5(Sa~?) 2.R:a4 3.R:b4 Qa1#
1.Sh3(Sg~?) 2.B:e7 3.B:b4 Qg7#
sh#3
3.1.1.1
7+9
1.S:f3 2.K:d2 3.d3 (Ld3?) Sc4#
1.de3 2.Kc4 3.Ld3 (Sd3?) Tc6#
1.L:e6 2.Ke4 3.Sd3(d3?) Sg5#
Aleksandr Semenenko
10th Pl. BIT 2014
Evgeni Bourd
11th Pl. BIT 2014
£¤£¤£¤£¤
¤£¬»¤£¤£
£¤£¤£¤£¤
¤£¤©¼»¤£
Y¤2n£¼£¤
¤W¤£¤£¤£
£¤£¤£¤o¤
¤0¬£¤£¤£
£¤£¤£¤£n
¤£¤£¤£¤£
m¤£¤£¤£¤
X£¤£¤£¤©
£¼£¤2¤£¤
¤0¤£¤£¤»
£¤£¼£¼¹¤
¤£¤©ZIZ£
sh#3
3.1.1.1
4+9
1.K:d4 2.Ke4 3.Rd4 Sf6#
1.K:d5 2.Kc6 3.Bd5 Rb6#
1.K:b3 2.Ka3 3.Sb3 Bb2#
sh#3
3.1.1.1
sh#3
3.1.1.1
3+7
1.Kf6 2.Qe6 3.Be7 d:e8S#
1.Qc5 2.Kd6 3.Re6 d:c8S#
1.Qf6 2.Bd6 3.Re7 d8S#
Marko Filipović
12th Pl. BIT 2014
7+8
1.Q:g2 (Q~ ?) 2.f1B 3.Bd3 Bb7#
1.Q:a6 (Q~ ?) 2.f1S 3.Se3 Sf2#
1.Qe2 (Q~ ?) 2.f1R 3.Rf4 Sg3#
£¤£¤£¤£¤
¤£¤£¤£¤£
Y¤£¤m¤£¤
¼W¬«º£¤£
Y¤2¤£¤0¤
p©¼£¤¹¤£
£¼»¤£¤£¤
¤£¤£¤£¤£
sh#3
3.1.1.1
6+10
1.Bb4 2.K:b5 3.Sb6 Sd4 #
1.Sd3 2.Sb4 3.K:b3 B:d5#
1.R:e6 2.Sb4 3.Kd5 R:c5#
Valery Semenenko
13th Pl. BIT 2014
Aleksandr Bulavka
14th Pl. BIT 2014
Marko Klasinc
15th Pl. BIT 2014
£¤£¤£¤£H
¤£¤£¤»¤£
£¤£¤£¤£¤
¤£¤£¤W¤£
£¬£¼2¼£¤
¤£¤©¤©¤£
£¤£¤£¤£¤
¤0¤£¤£¤£
£1£¤£X£¤
¤£¤£¤£¤£
£¤£¤£¤»¤
H£¤»3£¼£
W¤£¤£¤»¤
¤£¤£¤£¤£
£¤m¤«¬¹¤
¤£¤©¤I¤£
£¤£¤£¤Y¤
¤£¤£¤£¤£
£¼£¤Iª«¤
¤£¤¹p2¤£
0¤£¤£¤£º
¤£¤£¤¹¤£
£¤£¤£¤£¤
¤£¤£¤W¤£
sh#3
3.1.1.1
1.K:f5 2.Kg6 3.f5 Se5#
1.K:f3 2.Kg3 3.f3 Rg5#
1.K:d3 2.Kc4 3.d3 Sd2#
5+5
sh#3
3.1.1.1
1.Sd4 2.Qd3 3.Ke4 Qe1#
1.Se4 2.Qf5 3.Kf4 Qc7#
1.Sd3 2.Qf6 3.Kf5 Q:d5#
7+8
sh#3
3.1.1.1
1.Sf4 2.Rg4 3.Sg6+ f:g4#
1.Bd4 2.Qe4 3.Be5+ f:e4#
1.Kf4 2.Qg4 3.Kf5+ f:g4#
6+6
Branislav Ðurašević
16th Pl. BIT 2014
Mihajlo Milanović
17th Pl. BIT 2014
Michel Caillaud
18th Pl. BIT 2014
£¤Y¤£¤£¤
¤£¤£¤£¤£
£¤£¼Y¤«¤
¤¹p2¤£¤£
£¼£¤£¤0¤
¤£¤¹¤¹¤£
£¤£X£¤£n
¤£¤£¤m¤£
£¤£¤£¤£¤
1£¤£¤»¤£
£¤»p£¼£¤
¤£Z2Z£ª£
W¤£¤£¤£¤
¤£¤£¤£¤£
£¤£¤¹¤£¤
¤£¤£¤£¤£
o¤I¤£¤£¤
¤£¤¹¤£¤£
£¤£¤£¤£¤
¤»º¹3Yº0
£¤£¤£¤£¤
¤£¤£¤£¤£
£¤£¤£¤£¤
¤£¤£¤£¤£
sh#3
3.1.1.1
7+7
sh#3
3.1.1.1
4+7
sh#3
3.1.1.1
5+5
1.K:d5 2.Kc6 3.Rd5 dc8Q#
1.Q:c5 2.Kd6 3.Re5 d8Q#
1.B:d5 2.Ke6 3.Qe8+ de8Q#
1.Bd4 2.Rc4 3.Bc5+ d:c4#
1.Sf4 2.Re4 3.Se6+ d:e4#
1.Bb6 2.Kc5 3. d5 d4#
1.Rb5 2.Kc5 3.Rd5 Se4#
1.Re6 2.Be5 3.Rd6 e4#
1.Rf5 2.Ke5 3.Rd5 Re4#
Miodrag Radomirović
19th Pl. BIT 2014
Srećko Radović
20th Pl. BIT 2014
Ilija Serafimović
21st Pl. BIT 2014
£¤£¤G¤£¤
¤£¤£¤£Z£
£¤£¼£¤Y¤
¤£¤£¤£¤£
£¤£1£¼2¤
¤£¤£¤£¤£
£¤£¤£¼£¤
¤£¤£¤£¤£
£¤£¤2¤£¤
¤£¼£¤£¤£
£¤£n£¤£¤
¤£¤£¤G¤£
£¤£¤£¤£¤
1£¤£¤£¤£
£¼£¤£¤£¤
¤£¤£¤£¤£
Y¤£¤2¤£Z
¼£¤£¤£¤£
£¤¹¼¹º£¤
¤£¤G¤£¤£
£¤£¤£¤£¤
¤£¤£¤£¤£
£¤£¤£¤£p
Jo¤0¤£¤£
sh#3
3.1.1.1
5+8
1.0-0-0 2.Kb8 3.Ka8 c7#
1.0-0 2.Kh7 3.Rg8 Qh5#
1.Rc8 2.Rc6 3.Ra6 Qa8#
sh#3
3.1.1.1
2+6
sh#3
3.1.1.1
3+3
1.b1Q 2.Qb5 3.Qd7 Qf8#
1.b1R 2.Rb8 3.Rd8 Qe6#
1.b1B 2.Ba2 3.Bf7 Qc8#
1.Kf5 2.Rg4 3.R7g5 Qf7#
1.Kf3 2.Rg3 3.R7g4 Qe4#
1.Kh3 2.Rg2 3.R7g3 Qh5#
Marko Ložajić
22nd Pl. BIT 2014
Milomir Babić
23rd Pl. BIT 2014
Slobodan Šaletić
24th Pl. BIT 2014
£¤£¤£¤Y¤
¤£¤0¤£¤£
£¤G¤£¤£¤
¤£¤£¤£¤£
£¤£¤£¤Y¤
¤£¤£¤»¤2
£¤£¤£¤©¤
¤£¤£¤£¤£
G¤£¤£¤£¤
¤£¤£º£¤£
£¤£¤£¤£¤
¤£¤£¤£¤£
£¤£3£¤£¤
¤£¤m¤£¤0
»¤£¤£¤£¤
¤£¤£¤£¤o
£¤£¤£Z£¤
¤£¤£¤£¤£
£¤£¤£¤£¤
¤»¤0¤£¼£
£¤£¤»¤£3
¤£º£ºm¤»
£¤£¤£º£¤
¤£¤£n£¤£
sh#3
3.1.1.1
1.f:g2 2.g1R 3.Rg3 Qh1#
1.R4g5 2.Kg4 3.Kf5 Qe6#
1.Rh4 2.R:g2 3.Rh2 Q:f3#
3+4
sh#3
3.1.1.1
1.Ke5 2.Kf6 3.Kg7 Qf8#
1.Ke3 2.Kf2 3.Kg1 Qa7#
1.Kc3 2.Kb2 3.Ka1 Qh8#
4+3
sh#3
3.1.1.1
1.Rf4 2.Rg4 3.Rg3 f:g3#
1.Ra8 2.Ra2 3.R:f2 B:f2#
1.Rc8 2.R:c3 3.R:e3 f:e3#
6+6
Dean Miletić
25th Pl. BIT 2014
Mihailo Savić
26th Pl. BIT 2014
£¤£¤£¤£¤
¤£¤m¤£J£
£¤£¤£3£¤
¤£¤£¤£¤£
£¤£¤£¤£¤
¤£¤0¤£¤£
£¤G¤£¤£¤
¤£¤£¤£¤£
sh#3
£¤£¤£¤£¤
¤£¤£¤£¤Y
£¤0¤£¤£¤
¤£¤¹¤£¤£
£¤£¼G¤£¤
n£¼£¤£¤£
£¤©¤»¤£¤
¤2¤m¤W¤W
3+2
3.1.1.1
Zoran Sibinović
27th Pl. BIT 2014
sh#3
1.Ke7 2.Kd8 3.Qe7 Qc8#
1.Kg5 2.Kh4 3.Qg5 Qh2#
1.Ke5 2.Kd5 3.Qe5 Qc6#
3.1.1.1
8+5
£¤£¤£¤£¤
¤£¤£¤0¤£
£¤£¤£¤£¤
¤£¤£¤£¤£
£¤£¤£¤£¼
n£º¹º£ªm
»¤£3£¤£¼
p£¤£¤£¤£
sh#3
3.1.1.1
7+5
1.K:d3 2.Kc2 3.Kb1 Bf5#
1.K:e3 2.Kf4 3.Kg5 Bc1#
1.K:e3 2.Kf2 3.Kg1 Bc5#
1.Ka2 2.Kb3 3.Kc4 Se3#
1.e:f1B 2.Bc4 3.Ba2 Bh5#
1.Rb7 2.Rb2 3.Ra2 B:e2#
There was a surprising variety of harmonious 3-phase contents: cyclic double-pin mates (Places 1,3, 14),
cyclic capturing of 2 out of 3 white pieces (5,6), battery abandoning (2), hide-away effects (7, 11), mates
on the same square (17), self-blocks on the same square (6, 7, 8), Bristols (20)... Single-Pawn mates (15,
16) were also combined with promotions to 3 WS (9) and 3 WQ (18). Single-Knight pin-mates (4)
produced a striking geometry. Black promotions got the most economical form (21) and featured with
the hide-away dual-avoidance (11). Cyclic Zilahi was combined with check-preventing (12), double
capturing (5), Umnov + Model mates (10, 13), and a cyclic change of roles + cyclic dual-avoidance (8).
Quick Solving (27 ser-h#3 with 3 solutions)
rank
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
16
18
19
Solver
Marko Filipović
Aleksandr Bulavka
Miodrag Mladenović
Vladimir Podinić
Marko Klasinc
Srećko Radović
Michel Caillaud
Jorma Paavilainen
Branislav Đurašević
Nikola Predrag
Dragan Stojnić
Dean Miletić
Mihailo Savić
Marko Ložajić
Milomir Babić
Mihajlo Milanović
Branko Udovčić
Ivan Bender
Ilija Serafimović
pts time
81
70
80
78
80
95
80 100
79 119
79 120
78
72
78 115
76 120
75 120
71 120
66 120
60 120
59 120
57 120
53 120
53 120
51 120
22 120
Each solution = 1 point, max time = 120’
Marko Klasinc
Srećko Radović
Michel Caillaud
Jorma Paavilainen
Branislav Đurašević
Nikola Predrag
Dragan Stojnić
Dean Miletić
Mihailo Savić
Marko Ložajić
Milomir Babić
Mihajlo Milanović
Branko Udovčić
Ivan Bender
Ilija Serafimović
8
10
9
9
8
10
10
10
10
6
10
10
8
7
4
7
8
7
10
8
9
10
8
4
8
8
10
10
9
7
10
9
9
9
9
7
9
8
9½
7
9
9
4
7
6
8
7
8
10
8
9
9
9
8
8
8
3
7
9
9
6
10
9
6
4
9
6
7
7
6
7
7
5
9
5
8
7
10
9
8
7
7
7
8
5
10
9
8
10
10
9½
4
8
8
7
7
9
4
7
2
9
9
8
8
5
10
6
7
5
6
5
10
7
8
8
10
7
4
Dragan Stojnić
6
7
8
6
7
10
7
8
9
7
5
10
5
8
7
9
8
1
Nikola Predrag
6
5
8
7
5
8
6
6
9
6
6
10
9
6
6
4
6
10
Aleksandr Semenenko
6
7
8
5
5
9
5
9
8
4½
6
8
8
7
8
9
6
6
3
Evgeni Bourd
7
8
9
6
7
8
8
8
8
6½
4
4
9
6
9
3
7
6
4
7
8
7
5
7
6
6
7
7½
3
4
10
7
7
7
9
7
4
5
10
7
5
9
6
7
8
8
4
3
7
7
7
8
5
7
1
10
8
8
6
3
6
4
6½
5
4
10
7
7
5
8
6
1
5
6
8
8
3½
1
7
9
9
3
5
5
7
1
5½
5
6
10
8
4
4
6
5
4
2
6
3
Borislav Gadjanski
10
10
Miodrag Mladenović
6
7
Paz Einat
9
10
Nebojša Joksimović
8
6
Ivo Tominić
8
8
Franz Pachl
7
Jorma Paavilainen
Marko Filipović
Valery Semenenko
6
Aleksandr Bulavka
7
Marko Klasinc
6
6
7
9
Branislav Đurašević
6
5
6
6
5
5
6
6
Mihajlo Milanović
4
4
8
6
4
6
6
6
8
5½
5
4
7
10
5
Michel Caillaud
4
4
8
5
5
6
5
8
6½
5
6
9
7
5
4
2
6
2
Miodrag Radomirović
5
4
7
1
3
5
4
3
4
4½
3
2
7
6
4
1
3
6
9
Srećko Radović
3
4
8
5
3
6
2
5
5
2
4
6
3
2
2
2
5
8
Ilija Serafimović
4
2
5
3
2
3
5
3
6
6
3
5
2
7
3
3
1
4
Marko Ložajić
3
4
3
1
2
2
4
3
6
4½
1
1
5
2
3
2
4
6
Milomir Babić
4
3
7
2
2
2
4
1
3
3½
3
3
3
4
2
1
4
5
Slobodan Šaletić
3
4
2
4
2
1
5
3
2
2½
2
2
4
2
3
1
3
4
10
Dean Miletić
4
1
3
2
3
2
4
2
6
4
2
1
5
1
2
1
3
7
Mihailo Savić
1
6
6
2
2
1
2
2
2
1
1
1
4
3
2
5
4
3
Zoran Sibinović
2
2
4
1
1
3
1
1
1
1½
1
1
1
1
1
3
3
4
8
Average mark
Vladimir Podinić
10
Aleksandr Bulavka
8
Marko Filipović
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
Miodrag Mladenović
Solvers’ marks
8.79
8.11
8.08
7.68
7.37
7.34
7.33
7.11
6.83
6.71
6.71
6.58
6.32
6.19
5.86
5.69
5.53
5.42
4.29
4.17
3.72
3.14
3.14
3.13
2.94
2.67
2.13
The Overall Winner of the 10th BPCF
is
Miodrag Mladenović
Solving
OSCS
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
Miodrag Mladenović
Marko Filipović
Michel Caillaud
Srećko Radović
Aleksandr Bulavka
Dragan Stojnić
Jorma Paavilainen
Marko Klasinc
Branislav Djurašević
Nikola Predrag
Mihajlo Milanović
Composing
Ser-h#3
pl
pts
pl
pts
6
6
13
17
1
7
1
8
3
4
2
1
3
8
13
4
5
10
1
3
6
2
1
1
2
1
11
5
26
4
9
8
10
21
1
7
6
2
11
8
5
9
10
16
#2
pl
h#2
pts
Ser-h#3
pl
pts
pl
pts
pts
2
10
2
10
1
1
1
1
3
4
1
1
2
1
34
27
26
22
18
18
15
10
7
6
6
12
7
3
Belgrade, April 2014.
4
8
Total
18
4
7
20
14
1
13
8
7
15
16
8
1
3
9
17

Download Report