---

---

---

      For the first year of this young electronic review,"e4 e5" 2008 was a popular tourney: 83 problems by 40 authors from 21 countries took part in the competition. In itself, it is good news for this review and for the person who did absolutely everything in order to bring this website to life, Dan Gurgui.

      However, the competing originals suffered from the usual shortcomings of nowadays' helpmates in two, such as lack of originality, of strategic contents or, probably, of imagination. It is not too surprising for a genre that has been exploited so intensively over the past decades and it also explains why long helpmates have become more and more popular and why Petko Petkov's idea of Anti-Identical helpmates has been considered with interest.

      I reckon that the following award may look severe and too rigorous and I apologise in advance to composers who might feel wronged. It would have certainly looked different (other problems awarded, different ranking) if it had been conceived by another judge. The task of judging such a tourney is not easy though: not many problems stood above the rest and sieving 83 problems of average quality through a set of more or less exacting criteria can lead to either too many or too few candidates for the award. I chose to be selective, but my successor in this function for the 2009 tourney may opt for a smoother approach.

      In h#2 awards, looking for anticipations has become a considerable part of the judge's task. This would not be possible without the Chess Problem Database Server, the h#2 judge's best friend in the absence of another database. I am also most indebted to Chris J. Feather, whose invaluable experience, knowledge, kindness and advice helped me to better discern valuable works and prevented me from committing too blatant injustice.

      In the following sections I will explain why some of the problems were not awarded. They are presented in chronological order in each category.

     The first category of unawarded problems consists in clearly anticipated problems. The diagrams of the "e4 e5" original and of the anticipated problem are placed next to each other so that the reader can convince himself of the anticipation.

     9 (L. MAKARONEZ) White tempo d4 or d3 and dual avoidance. More economical (3 units less) than a former work which nonetheless completely anticipates it: L. Makaronez, Probleemblad 1995.

     27 (A.STREBKOVS): The problem looks very old-fashioned...and indeed, it is in fact a correction of a cooked problem by Costin Teodoru, Revista de Sah 1974. It would have probably deeply affected Mr. Strebkovs to write the mention "after C. Teodoru" under his own name.

     28 (A.STREBKOVS): The problems economises a pawn (but resorts to twinning) compared to Laszlo Apro, Revista de Sah 1968, but I guess this is not an accident. Readers can enjoy this lovely webpage dedicated to the plagiarising phenomenon called A. Strebkovs. If he had been smarter, he probably would not have chosen to publish in the Romanian "e4 e5" the plagiarised versions of problems formerly published in the Romanian Revista de Sah. But that would have deprived us of a funny gag.

     The following problems are not as clearly anticipated - but still ...

     79 (Gyorgy BAKCSI): Rook moves and Rook promotion in a), S moves and S promotion in b); twin c) is rather anti-identical and detracts. Twin b) looks like the S solution of Goumondy's white AUW Schach-Echo; a) and b) can be compared with a prior work by Gyorgy Bakcsi & Laszlo Zoltan, The Problemist 2002: the S and R solutions are similar (see diagram below).

     82 (Pietro PITTON): Black and White castle on the same side: this style is pretty old-fashioned. A white Rook is useless in each solution and the white Bishop in the first solution, which is always highly regrettable. Similar examples: Karl Kubbel, Magyar Sakkvilag 1929 (see diagram) or Iwan I. Soroka Schach-Echo 1981. The anticipation is not as clear as in the prior examples, but it is an important part of the reasons why the problem could not be awarded (other reasons: heterogeneous solutions, useless white units).

     83 (Aleksey GASPARYAN): The tries interfere with the bQ: dual avoidance. It has been done before: please just have a look at the two below problems by Zivko JANEVSKI and Toma GARAI for similar captures of a wR (by a bS). Here the main addition is the dual avoidance but it could hardly be deemed worthy of an award.

     In the final subcategory, anticipation is relative and concerns the idea itself, not the way it was realised.

     6 (T.GARAI) is partially anticipated, as far as the idea is concerned, by Y.BLAUSTEIN, 1st Honourable Mention, Israel Ring Tourney 1968, that used a more economical bB instead of the pinned bQ. (Thank you, Chris).

     8 (V.MEDINTSEV) offers three consecutive direct unpins in each solution. At first sight a very good achievement, but the prior T.LINSS, 2nd Prize Schach1983 shows that in 25 years, apart from economy, little improvement has been brought to this idea, since the B1 unpins are not done by the same piece in the present problem. (By the way, wSb7 could be replaced by a wPb4 in the 1983 problem).

     53 (Vadim VINOKUROV & Alexandr SEMENENKO) presents a stimulating theme: "the pinner is pinned", with bB/wB and bR/wR. The second black move, a simple self-block, is a disappointment. Besides, the same theme was shown more economically in 1990 by Franz PACHL and Markus MANHART in Probleemblad.

     The basic idea of 65 (S.TROMMLER) is completely devoid of interplay: Black must play 'idiotic' tempo moves to pass time. Had White the right to move twice in a row, 1.Sb5 2.Sc3# or 1.Sb3 2.Sc5# would ensue. Black has two series of moves at his disposal and each one prevents one of these two mates. Fine for tempo amateurs, but the same idea was shown with 3 solutions by Norman Alasdair Macleod 30 years ago (5th Honourable Mention, die Schwalbe 1977).

     The following self-anticipation was announced by the composer himself and we thank him for attracting our attention on it. Associating reciprocal captures and black switchbacks after capture was a good idea, but the author already showed it in 2007. For this reason, problem 25 loses its previously granted 4th Commendation.

    o Sorry, fellow composers, mechanical tasks were not much appreciated by this judge.

    34 by V.MEDINTSEV had as many as 8 solutions, all homogeneous enough, but as boring as watching grass grow, an occupation you can revel in on this website.

    81 (Aleksandr DEREVYUK, Anatoly MITYOSHIN & Roman ZALOKOTSKY) generously offers three solutions ending with the same mate after self-pins of the wQ and line openings by capture of wPe3. This geometry exercise solved in 10 seconds is a little too monotonous for my taste. But that was nothing compared with some problems that had many repetitious twins and would certainly prove more adequate as sleeping drugs than as chess problems.

    o Problems with (interesting contents) but unaesthetic presentation:

    Some problems had a flawed presentation.

    17 (L.TOGOOKHUU) has good strategic contents in a clumsy presentation. The black anticipatory self-pins and white Grimshaw were already the themes of a better problem by Fadil ABDURAHMANOVIC - which incidentally proves that the wQ unpins in this problem are not thematically necessary. Thank you, Chris, for pointing this out.

    18 (E. ZIMMER) offers a cyclic Zilahi and almost a cycle of white moves, and would deserve a better presentation than a zero position.

    A similar remark can apply to the crowded but classically inspired 38 (D.MÜLLER): typical sacrifices of the unpinned white unit (here a wQ) thus decoying a black Pawn from its guarding duty. The author seems to endear the idea of a pinned wQ unpinned at the first move, since he used it in his 5th Prize, The Problemist 1988, a better problem in my humble opinion.

    o Helpmates Of The Future with insufficient or unbalanced contents:

    3 (K.MLYNKA) really nice hideaways by the black Bishop; the first pair of solutions (1.Ka8 & 1.Bb7) of this HOTF is however not too homogeneous and the other pair is quite tedious.

    12 (I.MURARASU) makes a good impression at first sight, with its 2x2 reciprocal batteries; however, the awkward twinning is embarrassing. What is more disturbing is the lack of unity of the last two solutions, because one mate is given by double check. What a pity!

    32 (V.MEDINTSEV) has an acceptable second pair of variations with white battery creation but the other pair is rather weak; both have little originality.

    35 (V.MEDINTSEV) shows 2 S- and 2 Q-promotions. But wSg6 is useless in the 1.Bxg8 variation; its guard of e7 is needed only in the 1.Qe8 variation. With a wPf4 instead of wSg6, we would obtain only three variations - would that be such a loss?

    39 (D.MULLER) displays 2 white line openings and 1 black line closing in each of its 4 solutions. One can only regret that the same white lines are opened and that the position does look very symmetrical. Schade!

    40 (V.VINOKUROV) manages to give 4 echo mates with 2 white pawns supported by a pair of white Rooks. W1 and W2 are inverted in each twin and the single of double step of the wPs and echo mates link the four solutions. A similar idea can be spotted in GORDIAN & RUDENKO, Suomen Shakki 1988 (cooked, but could be repaired by adding a bR on the 2nd rank). The main disadvantages of 40 are the lack of interplay and of strategy: self-blocks are not enough!

    80 (L.M.MARTIN) was full of wQ ambushes but the repetitious mates on g5 and g6 and, more importantly, the wBh6 that is useless in 2 solutions out of 4, made it impossible for the problem to be included in the award. Sorry for the chess fans of Vilviestre del Pinar, to whom this problem was dedicated, but I send them a warm hello all the same.

    o Lack of Interplay

    Quite a few problems suffered from lack of interplay. How can we define this lack? Rather simply: when you can play the moves of a solution B1 W1 B2 W2 in the order B1 B2 W1 W2, this means lack of interplay. The following problems had this defect, plus at least another one which is mentioned.

    15 (A. SCHONHOLZER): 2 black self interferences in order to mask the QS battery, dual avoidance due to black line openings. Rather simple, all things considered.

    26 (A.ZARUR) White strategic play, but hardly any black strategy: a mere self-block at b2.

    45 (A.ONKOUD) is a simple example of white move inversion AB-BA and black self-blocks on the same square. Lack of interplay is the eliminatory defect.

    47 (V.NEFYODOV) is a more ambitious item: classical critical moves of wR and wB followed by mates by wS. What is original here is the Zilahi feature and the change of function of wSs. The lack of interplay is critical here: we can replace the 2 wSs by one single wSd8 and the solutions are identical, with the major difference that there is no capture on d6 and d4 and the Zilahi feature disappears. This makes the whole idea look rather artificial.

    51 (V.VINOKUROV) has interesting last white moves: battery mates by Pelle moves. The pinning of the white units is necessary for the correction of the problem. The black Queen plays the role of a mere black Rook but cannot be replaced by any other black unit on the board. The main defect of this work is, again, the lack of interplay.

    o Miscellaneous defects

    11 (T.GARAI) The theme (capture of a white unit and self-block of the field this unit guarded, in order to open a line for a future pin) was first shown in 1974 by C.J.FEATHER, Europe Echecs 1974.  The fact that there is an alternative route for the bBh5 (via g6 or f3) to e4 but not for the bPe6 (only one way to c4, via d5) results from a shortcoming of the chosen scheme.

    15 (P.TRITTEN) offers 6 white promotions in 6 half-moves. Only one promotion is not an S one and the solutions lack unity - which are the essential reasons why V.SCHNEIDER's six S-promotions and three echo mates  are to be preferred to this problem.

    31 (C.J.FEATHER) features an idea the author has been fond of: the pinned captures the pinner. The important strategic question is: what is the purpose of the capture? Here the answer is a line opening for an intruding white Queen. Unfortunately, the same mate occurs after the echoed captures. The bPb5 capture must have felt like a thorn in the author's foot but cannot be avoided without adding black material.

    37 (D.MULLER) could have been in the award but for a decisive flaw: wSc6 is useless in the 1.Qb5 solution. The 1st pair of solutions, with a classical white retreat freeing the mate field while black also retreats and interferes his own pieces, is much above the self-blocks, heterogeneous white play and lack of interplay of the second pair. The better pair would have raised this problem to the level of awarded, had it not have the aforementioned disturbing defect: a useless white unit in one solution.

    42 (C.JONSSON) features three rather different solutions. The relationship between them seems to be the play of the two B-S batteries. All three solutions are known from other h#2 but it's the first time they are shown together. The lack of unity disturbs me however; this work has not convinced me it is an actual Anti-Identical problem, because solutions do not present equivalent and opposed thematic contents.

    49 (V.NEFYODOV) is one of the rare helpmates where the wK plays an active role. The wQ and wS exchange functions and play is unified. One can only regret the very heavy setting (for instance the 3 black units of the S-E corner) and the unthrilling, although thematical, first black move.

    70 (A.ONKOUD) is interestingly flawed (I am not sure that the author will appreciate this expression but let's hope he does not resent it). The wS alternatively masks the wB/wR line and mate is given by the wPc2, but when it masks the wR it also unpins the wP. This lack of unity prevented the problem from being awarded.

    71 (A.ONKOUD) is a fine problem which would also have been awarded, if the anticipatory self-pins by a capture made by the same black unit had not been shown in the forerunnerNikola STOLEV, Phenix 1992, with a black Queen as thematic piece instead of the present black Rook. B2 is different in each problem and I subjectively tend to think that it was more thematical in the earlier problem by Stolev, since the square occupied by the bQ was occupied by the white unit captured in the other solution. Stolev's idea was also remade more economically by C.J.FEATHER, The Problemist 1993

    Prize: 66 (S. TROMMLER & F. PACHL) What first attracts in this problem is its elegance. The lack of captures is inherent to the author's original idea. We can compare it with Zivko JANEVSKI, 1st Prize Schach Aktiv 1992 which adds bSs self-pins, and with C.J. FEATHER, 1st Prize StrateGems 1998, which does present the crossing of the critical square by both wR and wB, although with captures. As regards the aim of W1, it is not pure, since it both unpins wSd6 and interferes with bBh7/bRa4; the unity of motivations is however remarkable. The black moves offer less interest - both self-blocks, the move inversion being determined by the necessity to open a white thematic line. All in all, a very aesthetic problem that deserves its first place in the tourney.

    1st Honourable Mention: 57 (M.WITZTUM) The bSs exchange their functions in interfering the same bBa7 and self-pinning. There is a minor inconsistency in strategy, in that only one interference is anticipatory (1.Sc5), while for instance in C.J.FEATHER, Sinfonie Scacchistiche 1974 both interferences were. Besides, no twinning was used in that 1974 problem. The interference of the same line in both solutions remains original and earns this problem a mention.

    2nd Honourable Mention: 56 (V.VINOKUROV) The double sacrifice of the same white pieces may not be exceedingly original, but the fact that they are in turn passive and active sacrifices is an attractive feature, as well as the excellent economy. Other problems have of course explored the paradoxical possibilities of white sacrifices, such as Andrey FROLKIN, Themes 64 1984 but this work bears more resemblance to recent work by A.Pankratiev.

    The following commendations have a common defect: lack of interplay. This is why they were not ranked higher in the award.

    1st Commendation: 2 (V. CRISAN)     The two pairs of solutions (1.Bc8/1.Qe2; 1.Kc8/1.Kf1) are linked together by the white reciprocal batteries and black self-blocks. Black strategy is certainly not too deep and the twinning may seem mechanical; besides, it is a pity for the problem's economy that the bQ plays the role of a mere bB. However, this is a very respectable piece of work and I have not found other presentations of this idea under the form of a HOTF: Nicolae POPA, Phenix 2000 is a setting presenting only one pair of solutions (Bxd5 & Rxd5) with 12 units.

    2nd Commendation: 50 (V.ABROSIMOV & V.NEFYODOV) After many hesitations, I finally included this problem in the award. There are several pros and cons. The main reproaches that can be addressed are the zero-position, the twinning that moves a thematic unit and the lack of interplay. But on the other hand, the strategic contents are extremely wealthy and the numerous changes of function within four (!) pairs of pieces (wRa5/wBa1, wRh4/wSb6, bRc3/bSc5 and bSe6/bPd6) definitely prove the authors' ambition. The construction would certainly have deserved improvements and hopefully the authors will grant this work still deeper attention in order to find a perfect presentation of the idea.

    3rd Commendation: 21 (A.RUSZ) The author has obviously focused on stimulating and well-balanced strategy. The Pelle moves by the bQ and Leibovici interferences deserve attention. However in each solution one white piece is idle: either wBe5 or wRb3. They are certainly necessary for the mate, since they passively interfere bBa2 and bRh5, but each could be replaced by a wP in one solution.

    4th Commendation: 48 (V.NEFYODOV) Black active and white passive sacrifices - that is interesting, all the more so in good construction and good unity and in a setting that seems original. The half-pin on the 8th rank prevents cooks and the problem was not too easy to solve - all these are good reasons for awarding this work.

    5th Commendation: 16 (L.MAKARONEZ) 3 model-mates with the three black pieces pinned in turn. The author's good technique allows him to improve Sriram GANAPATHI, StrateGems 2002, which had only 2 solutions, but the price is 3 additional black units. Common sense would probably approve the additional mention "after S. Ganapathi".

    6th Commendation: 46 (A.ONKOUD) This work presents an impressive amount of strategy in the first black move: unpin of black and white unit as well as anticipatory interference. The change of black pin is a fairly well-known strategic theme and was the subject of an article by C. J. Feather in 'Orbit' several years ago. Choosing the simple self-block as a motivation for the 1st black move is not the best strategic option. The twinning is not too brilliant, but the general impression is rather positive nonetheless.

    My thanks to all the authors for their efforts and to Dan Gurgui for inviting me to judge this tourney, and congratulations to the winners.

    Eric Huber

    December 14th 2009, Bucharest & Cluj-Napoca.