The 10th Belgrade Problem Chess Festival (April, 4th – 6th 2014)

arly 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!

E

Participants (59)

S1 S2 C1 C2 C3 L 1 Aca Milićević SRB

2 Aleksandr Bulavka BLR x x

x x

3 Aleksandr Semenenko UKR

x

4 Bojan Bubanja MNE x

5 Bojan Vučković SRB x

6 Borislav Gadjanski SRB

x x

7 Borislav Ilinčić SRB

8 Božidar Šoškić SRB x

9 Branislav Djurašević SRB x x

x x

10 Branko Udovčić CRO x x

11 Daniel Wirajaya INA

x

12 Darko Hlebec SRB x

13 Darko Šaljić SRB

14 Dean Miletić SRB x x

x

15 Dieter Müller GER

x

16 Dinu-Ioan Nicula ROU x

x

17 Dragan Čiča SRB x

18 Dragan Stojnić SRB x x x x x x

19 Emanuel Navon ISR

x*

20 Evgeni Bourd ISR

x

21 Franz Pachl GER

x

22 Gligor Denkovski MKD

23 Igor Spirić SRB x

24 Ilija Serafimović SRB

x

x

25 Ingemar Lind SWE

x x

26 Ivan Bender CRO x x

27 Ivan Denkovski MKD

28 Ivo Tominić CRO

x x x

29 Jorma Paavilainen FIN x x

x x

30 Marjan Kovačević SRB

x

31 Marko Filipović CRO x x

x x

32 Marko Klasinc SLO x x

x x

33 Marko Ložajić SRB x x

x

34 Menachem Witztum ISR

x x

35 Michel Caillaud FRA x x x

x x

36 Mihailo Savić SRB

x

x

37 Mihajlo Milanović SRB x x

x x

38 Milan Simić SRB x

39 Milomir Babić SRB

x

x x

40 Miodrag Mladenović SRB x x

x x

41 Miodrag Radomirović SRB

x

x

42 Mirko Miljanić SRB x

43 Nebojša B. Joksimović SRB

x

44 Nikola Nikolić SRB x

45 Nikola Predrag CRO x x

x x x

46 Nikola Stolev MKD

x x

x

47 Paz Einat ISR

x*

x

48 Radomir Nikitović SRB

x

49 Ralf Krätschmer GER

x

50 Robert Burger USA

x

51 Slobodan Šaletić SRB

x

52 Srećko Radović SRB x x x x x

53 Valery Semenenko UKR

x

54 Valery Shanshin RUS

x

55 Vladimir Podinić SRB x x

56 Zoran Sibinović SRB x

x

57 Zvonimir Hernitz CRO

x

58 Živko Janevski MKD

x x

59 Živojin Perović SRB x

S1 = Open Solving Championship of Serbia

S2 = Quick Solving, Ser-h#3 (Originals from BIT 2014 – group C)

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)

L = Mini lectures * = coauthors

Open Solving Championship of Serbia, Belgrade April 5th – 6th , 2014

Rnk Solver Rating Cntry 2# 3# eg. h# n# s# Total

ΔR pts t pts t pts t pts t pts t pts t pts t

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 9 50 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 GM 2661.08 SRB 15 20 14 34 15 20 6¾ 50 15 46 10 50 75¾ 220 -43

8 Branislav Djurašević 2309.78 SRB 15 19 12 60 15 95 8 50 15 68 5 50 70 342 17

9 Marko Klasinc FM 2274.76 SLO 15 19 10 60 11 97 12½ 39 15 77 5 50 68½ 342 21

10 Nikola Predrag FM 2371.69 CRO 10 20 12 60 15 74 15 46 10 80 4 50 66 330 -8

11 Srećko Radović FM 2345.17 SRB 15 14 5 60 14 60 11½ 50 10 80 10 50 65½ 314 -4

12 Igor Spirić 2238.85 SRB 15 17 10 60 15 52 3¾ 50 0 80 9 50 52¾ 309 -19

13 Branko Udovčić 1929.36 CRO 5 20 11 60 10 100 10 50 5 80 9 50 50 360 41

14 Milan Simic 2111.36 SRB 10 20 11 60 10 65 3¾ 50 10 80 3 50 47¾ 325 -6

15 Zoran Sibinović 2035.28 SRB 5 20 8 60 15 99 5¼ 50 3 80 9 50 45¼ 359 10

16 Dragan Čiča 1883.63 SRB 10 20 10 60 14 67 5¼ 50 0 80 5 50 44¼ 327 37

17 Dean Miletić 2035.93 SRB 15 17 5 60 10 98 3¾ 50 5 79 4 50 42¾ 354 0

18 Ivan Bender 2232.30 CRO 5 20 7 60 15 92 10 50 0 80 5 50 42 352 -47

19 Mirko Miljanić 1963.61 SRB 5 20 5 60 15 68 3¾ 50 8 80 5 50 41¾ 328 10

20 Dinu-Ioan Nicula 2330.72 ROU 10 20 5 60 10 100 3¾ 50 5 80 6 50 39¾ 360 -72

21 Mihajlo Milanović 1958.88 SRB 10 18 3 60 15 69 3¾ 50 3 80 4 50 38¾ 327 4

22 Živojin Perović 1817.40 SRB 10 20 3¾ 60 14 71 3¾ 50 1½ 80 4 50 37 331 32

23 Bojan Bubanja 1965.35 MNE 5 20 13 47 7 55 5 50 5 80 0 50 35 302 -16

24 Marko Ložajić 1873.80 SRB 15 20 0 60 15 46 3¾ 50 0 80 0 50 33¾ 306 -

25 Božidar Šoškić 1915.46 SRB 10 20 3¾ 60 9 44 3¾ 50 0 80 5 50 31½ 304 -11

26 Dragan Stojnić 1755.71 SRB 10 10 7¾ 60 3 100 5 50 0 80 5 50 30¾ 350 16

27 Nikola Nikolić 1819.78 SRB 0 20 10 60 0 100 2½ 50 3 80 4 50 19½ 360 -26

Judges: Gligor & Ivan Denkovski

OSCS 2014 – Problems & Solutions

Problems

1 2 3

4 5 6

7 8 9

10 11 12

#2 9+6

£n£¤£¤£¤¤£¤m¤£¤££¤£¤£¤£Z¤£¼2¤£¤£©¤«¤£¤£¼¤¹º£¤¹¤££¤£¤W¤£¤¤©¤£¤£p0

#2 13+8

0¤£¤Gp£¤¤£¤¹¤£Z££¤£¤£¤£¤X£¤»¤£¤Y£¤¹3¹ªW¤¤oª£¤¹¤££n£º£¤£¤¤I¤«¤m¤£

#2 11+10

£Z£n£¤m¤¤£¤o¼£1££¤£¼£¤»ª¤£¼¹3¹¼£W¤£¤©¤£X¤£¤£¤£¤£G¤£¤£¤¹p¤£¤£Z£¤£

#3 11+4

£1£¤£¤£¤¤¹¤£¤£¤££¤»ª£¤£n¤£¼2º£¤¹£¤£ª£¤£¤¤£¤£¤£¤£¹p£¤¹¤£¤¤£¤G¤m¤£

#3 9+15

£nm¤£¤£¤¤»¤©¤£¤££ª2¼£º£º¬Y¤»¤£1£G¤»X»¼£¤¤£¼£¤»¤££Z£po¤£¤¤«¤£¤£¤£

#3 11+10

£¤£¤G¤£¤¤£¤¹¤W¤££p0¼£º£¼¤W¤£ª2¤££¤»Z£¤£º¤£Z£n»¤££¤£¤£¼oº¤£¤m¤£¤£

+ 4+7

£¤£¤£¤©3¤£¤£X£¤»£¤£¤£X£¤¤£¤£¤£¤££¤£¤£¼£1¤£¤£p£¤££¤£¤Y¤»¤¤£¤£¤o¤£

+ 6+5

mª0¤£¤£¤¤£¤£¤£¤£»¤£¤£¤£¤J£3£¤£¤¹£¤£¤£¤»¤¤£¤£¤£º££º£¤£¤£¼¤£¤£¤£¤£

= 6+5

£¤£¤£¤0¤¤£¤W¤£º££¤£¤£¤2º¤£¤«¤£¼£Y¤£¤£¤£º¤£¤£¤£¤££¤¹¤£¤£¤¤o¤£¤£¤£

h#2 4 sol. 5+11

£¤£¤£p£¤¤»¤£¤£¤££¬o¼m¤£¤¤»¤£ª£¤££¼£3£¼£¤¤£X£¤£¤£0¼£¤¹¤Y¤¤£¤£¤£¤£

h#3 3 sol. 10+12

£¤£p£¤£¤¤£¤£¤o¤££¼£º£¤£¤¤»¤«º£¼£¹¼£º»¤0¬¤¹¼2º£º££¤£ª£¤£¤¤£¤W¤£¤I

h#5 2 sol. 2+13

©¬£¤£¤Y¤¤£¤£¤£¤££¤£¤£¤£¤¤£¤2¤£¼££¤»¤o¼£¤¼£¤£¤£¤»I¤Y¤£¤£¼¤£¤£1£¬£

13 14 15

16 17 18

Solutions

1. Ivan Denkovski 2. Efim Rukhlis 3. Gerhard Latzel

6. hm Mat 1987 (v) „64“ 1941 1. Pr. Lippische Landeszeitung 1950

Dmitry K. Kanonik

4. Milan Legiša 5. Antonio Piatesi 6. Vladimir I. Troyanovsky

Mat 1979 2. c. Die Schwalbe 1976 3. Pr. Vecherny Kiev 1965

#4 11+12

£X£¤£¤£¤¤£Z»¤m¤0£¤»Ho¤£¤¼»¤»¤£¼££¤£3»¤»¤¤W¤£ª£º££º¹¤£º£ª¤£Z£¤£¤£

#5 11+10

£¤£¤£¤£¤¤£¤£¤©¼«£¼0¤£¤£¤¼£º¹¤©n££p£¤2¤¹¤¤£¤£¤»ºm«¤¹¼£º£¤¤£¤Y¤£¤£

#6 10+13

£¤0¤£¤£¤¤W¤£¤£¤££¤¹¤G¤£¤¼£¼¹¼£¤££¤2¤£¼»¤¤©¤»Z£¤WYº£º»po¤¤£J£¤©¤£

s#2 6+13

£¤£¤£¤£¤n£¤£¤£¤£»¤»¤£¤£¤Z2¼£¤W¤o»¤£H£¤£¤1£¤£ª£¤Y»¬£¤£¤£¼JWp£¤£¤£

s#3 11+12

£¤£¤£¤£¤¤£¤Gn£¤£o¤»º£¤©¤¤£¼2¤»º££¼«¤£¤£X¬m¤0¤£¼££¤©X¹ZY¤¤£¤£¤£¤I

s#5 15+10

£¤£HWªYJ¤£X£¤£p»£¤»ªm¤£¼¼£º£3£º£¹¤£¤»¤¹¤º£1»º£¤££¤¹¤£¤£¤n£¤£¤£¤£

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#

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#

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#

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#)

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 8. Evgeny I. Dvizov 9. Yochanan Afek

1–2. Pr.= Schackvärlden 1936 2. c. Leninskaya Smena 1965–1966 2.Pr. Israel Ring Tourney 1991 (v)

10. Živko Janevski 11. Hans Moser 12. Anatoly Styopochkin

Original idee & form 2002 4. c. Orbit 1999

Leonid Makaronez Anatoly Khandurin

13. Leonid Lyubashevsky 14. Alexandre Postnikov 15. Michael Herzberg

Probleemblad 2001 3. Pr. Die Schwalbe 19966 3. hm idee & form 1998–199

16. Heinz Zander 17. Valery Surkov 18. Petko A. Petkov

1. hm Schach-Echo 1968 Phénix 1999 3. c. feenschach 1979

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]

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 =

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]

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]

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]

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]

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#

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#

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#

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#

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.

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

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.

#2

£¤£¤£1o¤¤£¼£¤£¤£¹¤£¤£¤£X¤£ª2¤£¤££¤£º£¤£¤n©¤£¤£¤»£¬G¤£¤Y¤¤£¤£¤£¤m

#2

o¤£X£¤£¤1£¼£¤£¤££¤2¤£¤m¤¤£¤£¤£¼G¹º£XY¤£¤¤£¤«Z£¤££¤£¤£¤£¤¤£¤£¤£¤£

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

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

Award rom 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 Robert Burger Srećko Radović 1st Pr. BIT 2014 2nd Pr. BIT 2014 3rd Pr. BIT 2014

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.

#2 10+9

£¤©X£¤mn¤0º£¤£¤£»º£¤»J£¬¤£¤£¤£¤£»¼£¤£¤£¤¤Y3©¤W¤£G¤£¤£¤£¤¤£Z£¤£¤£

#2 9+8

£¤£¤«H£ª¤£¤£1£¤»»ª£¤£¤£¤¤£¤£3£¤YYXm¤£¤o¤¤£º¹¤£¤££¤£¤£¤£pn£¤£¤£¤£

#2 8+10

£¤©X£¤£¤¼£Z£¤£¤m£¤£¤£¬£¤¤£¤£¤£¤£G¼2¤£¤£¼¬I¤»¤£¤0£X£¼£¤£¤¤£¤©¤£n£

1.Cb2+? Kc2! 1.Ce5+? I:f3+! 1.Ca7! ~ 2.c8I# 1...Gc2 2.Cb2#, 1...Gb2 2.Ce1# 1...Ig7 2.Ce5#,1...e5 2.Cf4#

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!)

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?

F

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 set-

theme 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 Daniel Wirajaya Emanuel Navon & Paz Einat

4th Pr. BIT 2014 5th Pr. BIT 2014 1st HM BIT 2014

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.

#2 9+7

£Z£¤£¤£¤¤£¤£¬£¤££¼£º£¤£¤¼£ª£¤£¤G£¤2º£¤W¤1£¤£¤£¤o£¤£¤¹¤£¤nW¤«¤£¤£

#2 10+8

£¤£X£¤£¤¤0n£¤£¤©G¬£¤£¼£J¤£¼£¤£¤££¤Yº2¤¹¤¤£¼£ª£¤W£¤£¤m¤£¤¤£¤£¤£p£

#2 15+9

£¤£¤£¤£¤¤0º£¼£¤£»¼¹¤¹¼£¤X©p2¤¹¤££º£¼Y¼¹¤¤¹H£¤£¤££¤£¤¹¤mn¤£¤W¤£¤£

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)

1. d:c5? ~, I:h3!2. Ed3# 1. ... Cd7/d5, Gd4, I:e3 2.I:c4, Ge8, C:f6# 1. Cf5! ~ 2. Ed3# 1. ... Ee3, G:d4,Cd7 2. Cg3, Ef3, Ic6# 1. ... I:h3/e3/d2 2.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. 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?)#

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 Miodrag Radomirović Nikola Stolev 2nd HM BIT 2014 1st Comm. BIT 2014 2nd Comm. BIT 2014

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.

#2 8+7

£¤o¤£¤£¤¤£¤£¤£¼0W¤£¤£¤£¤¤£¤£¼2¤£m¤©H©¤£¤¤£p£¤£¤¹£¤£¤£¤£¤¤£n£¤YZ£

#2 9+8

£¤£1£¤£¤¤£¼£X£p££¤£¤£¤£¤ª»¼£¤¹ª£»¤¹3£¤£¤¤£¤£¤£¤G£¤£º£¤m¤¤o¤«¤£¤£

#2 6+8

m¤o¤£n£¤¤£¤£¤£¤££¤£¼»¤£¤¤£¤£3£¼«£¤£ª£¤£p¤£¤£1£¼G£¤£¤£¤£¤¤£¤£¤W¤£

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#

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.Ia3! ~, b:c4, Ee5 2.Cf3, Cc6, Ce6# 1...Cc3, Ee4 2.I:c3, 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.Ig4! ~ 2.Ie4#[B] 1... d5,Cf6 2.Cc6[A], Cf3[C]# 1... Cf4,Eb7 2.Eg7, I:e6#

Annex A) Nils G.G. van Dijk A03v 2

nd HM Deutsche Schachztng 1961

I wish to thank all participants of this thematic experiment, and sincerely congratulate to the winners!

Marjan Kovačević, International judge

#2 9+11

I¤m¤«n£¤¼£¤W¤£¤£»ª2p»¤£¤¤£ºW¼£¤£o¤£¼£¤£¤ª»¤£¤£¤££¤£¤G¤£¤¤0¤£¤£¤£

#2 15+8

£¤0¤©¤£¤¤£¤£¤»¤££¤»º£º£¤X£ªo3£º»£¤¹¤»Z»º¤£ºG¤£¤m£¤£¤£º£n¤£¤£X£¤£

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#

1... E~, Ee6+ 2.I:e4, Cd7# 1.C:e4! ~ 2.Cd2# 1... g3, Kf5, Ke6, c5 2.Id4, Cg3, Cc5, I:d5#

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.

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.

h#2 2111

£¤£¤£¤£¤¤£¤0¤«¤££¤»H£ª£¤¤»ZI¤£¤££¤£3£¼¹¤¤»¼o¤m¤££¤£Z£¼»¤¤£p£¤£¤£

h#2 2111 b) wPf2

£¤£¤£¤£¤¼£¤£¤£¤£¹X£¤£¤¹¤¤£¼©¤£¤£»¤¹¤£¤£¤¼£¤£¤£ª¹£n£¤¹¼2¤¤0¤£¤£¤W

h#2 2111 b) wKa3->c7

£¤£¤£¤£¤¤£¤©p£¤£m¤£¼£¼£¤¤£ºo¤£¤««¤£3©¤»¤1£¼£¤£ºY£¤Y¼£º£J¤£¤£¤£¤£

Award

uite a small helpmate production told me the set theme was obviously a demanding one. From the

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 Miodrag Mladenović Menachem Witztum 1st Pr. BIT 2014 2nd Pr. BIT 2014 1st HM BIT 2014

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.

h#2 2111 9+14

£¤£¤£¤£¤¤£º»n£¤££Z¹¬»ºo¤¤»¤I¬2¤££¼»º»º»¤¤£p£X£º££¤£¤£¤£¤¤£¤£¤£¤0

h#2 2111 b)Kd8->g7

5+11

£¤£1£¤£¤Z£¤»¼£¤££¤£¤£¼£ª¤£n£¤£p££¤©¼¹3£¤¤£¤£¤»¼££¤£¤£¤£¤J£¤Y¤£¤£

h#2 2111 b)Rh3->b5

9+13

£¤£Z£¤£¤¤£¤£¤£¤££¼»¤£¤£¤¤»¤£¼Yp£oº¹¤£¤»º¤£º2¬IXW£º£¤£¤£1¤£¤«¤£¤G

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#

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)?

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)

Q

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 Živko Janevski Ivo Tominić 2nd HM BIT 2014 3rd HM BIT 2014 1st Comm BIT 2014

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.

h#2 2111 4+11

£¤£¤£¤£¤n£¤£¤m¤£»¼2¤»¤£¤¤£¤£¤£¤££¬Y¤»¤£¤¤G¬£¤£¤£oZ£¼£1£¤¤£¤£¤£¤£

h#2 2111 4+10

Y¤£¤G1£¤¬»¤£¼£¤££¤£¤£¼£¤¤£p£3£¬££¼£¤£¤£¤¤£¤£¤£¤om¤£¤£¤£¤¤£¤W¤£¤£

h#2 2111 b)Ke4->d4

4+7

£¤£¤W¤£¤¤£¤£ª£¤££¤£¤£¤£¤¤Y¤»¤£¤£o¤£¤2¤Y¤¤£¤£¤£¤I£¼£¤£¤£¤¤0¤£¤£X£

1.Cc2!(a) I:b6(A)+ 2.Kd5 I:e6(B)# 1.Gd4!(b) I:e6(B)+ 2.Kc5 I:b6(A)# 1.Cc2(a) E:e6? 2.Gc2 I:b6(A) G:b6! 1.Gd4(b) E:b6? 2.Kd6 I:e6(B) E:e6! 1.Cbd5? I:b6(A)+? 2.Kd5?? 1.Gc5? I:e6(B)+? 2.Kc5??

1.Ec8(a) Ed5 2.Kd6 I:e7#(A) 1.Ec8(a) Gd5 2.Ke6 Id7#(B)? 3.E:d7! 1.Cc8(b) Gd5+ 2.Ke6 Id7#(B) 1.Cc8(b) Ed5? 2.Kd6 I:e7#(A)? 3.C:e7!

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)?]

Nikola Stolev Mihajlo Milanović Ingemar Lind 2nd Comm. BIT 2014 3rd Comm. BIT 2014 4th Comm. BIT 2014

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 self-

block 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

h#2 2111 4+7

£¤£¤£p£¤¤£¤0¤£¤££¤£¬£¤£¤¤£¤»¤»¤Y£¤«3¹¤£¤¤£¤£¤£X££¤¹¤£¤£¤¤£¤£¤£¤£

h#2 2111 3+6

£¤£¤£¤£¤¤£ª«¤£¤££¤»¤£¤£¤¤£¤£¤£¤££¤2¤£¤£¤1£¼£¤£¤££¤£¤£¤£¤¤oX£¬£¤£

h#2 2111 b)Kf8<->Bf4

4+11

£¤£J£3£¤¤0¤¹¤£¤££¤«¤Y¼»ª¤£¤£¤£¤££¤£º£p£¤¤£¤£¼»Z££¤£¤£¤£¤¤o¤£¤£¤£

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

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

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)

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 Chris FEATHER 1.Pr.Thémes-64 1986-87 feenschach 1972 feenschach 1973 Moultings 1991

Chris FEATHER Tode ILIEVSKI Erkki A. WIRTANEN Ladislav SALAI Sr Hatchings 1995 feenschach 1997 4.Pr 127TT BCF 1970-71 diagrammes 1983

Gideon HUSSERL János CSAK Arno TUNGLER Zvi ROTH Boris GELPERNAS 1.hm Problem-Echo 2007 5.cm Die Schwalbe 1979(v) 1.hm Die Schwalbe 1978 feenschach 1981

sh#3 3.1.1.1

£¤£¤£¤£¤¤£¤©¤£¤££¼Wn£¤£¤¤¹¤£ª£¤££¤£3»¤¹¤¤£¤£¤£X£m1£¤»¤£¤¤£¤£¤£¤£

sh#3 3.1.1.1

£¤£¤0¤£¤¤£¤£¤£¤££¤£¤£¤GXX£¤£¤£¤££¤£3£¤£Z¤«¬£¤£¤££¤£¤£¤£¤¤£¤£¤£¤£

sh#3 3.1.1.1

£¤£ª£¤£1¤£¤£¤£¤£Y3£¤£¤£¤¤«¤£¤£¤££¤£¤£¤£¤¤£¤£¤£¤££¤£¤£¤£¤¤W¤£¤£¤m

sh#3 3.1.1.1

£¤W¤£¤£Z¤£¤£¤£¤£»¤£¤£¤£¤¤2º£¤£¤o»¤W¤I¤£¤¤£¤¹¤£¼0£¤£n¹¤£¤¤£¤£¤m¤£

sh#3 3.1.1.1

£¤£¤£¤£¤¤£¤0¤£¤££¤£¤£¤£¤¤£¤£¤£p£»¤£¤£3©¤¼£¼£¤£¤¹Y¬£¤£¤£¤¤Y¤£H£¤£

sh#3 3.1.1.1

£¤£¤£¤£¤¤£¤£¤£¤££¤£¤£¤£¤¤£¤£¤£¤££¤£¤£¤£¤H£¤£¤£¤£0¤£¤2J£¤¤£¤£¤£ZW

sh#3 3.1.1.1

£¤©¤£¤£¤¤£¤«¤£¤££º£¤»n£¤¤¹J2ZY¼££¤o¤»¤£¤¤£¤£¤¹ª££¤£¤¹¤£¤¤£¤£¤0¤£

sh#3 3.1.1.1

£¤£¤0¤£¤¤£¤£¤£¤££¤£¤£¤£¤¤£¤£¤£¤££ªG¤£¤£¤¤£¤£¤£¤£»¤£¤£¤£¤¤£¤2¤£¤£

sh#3* 3.1.1.1

£¤£¤£¤£¤¤£¤£¤£¤££¤£¤£¤£¤¤£¤£¤£¼££¤£¤£¤»H¤»¼£¤£X£»¤¹¤£¤£ºX£¤£1£¤2

sh#3 3.1.1.1

£¤£¤oZ£¤¤£¤£¤£¤«£¤£¤£¤£¤¤£¤£¤£nW£¤£¤£ª£º¤£¤£¤m3©£¤£¤0¤£¼¤£¤£¤£¤£

sh#3* 3.1.1.1

£¤£¤G¤£¤¤£¤£¤£¤££¤£1£¤£¤¤£º£¤©¤££¤2º£¤£¤º»¼£¤£¤££X£X£¤£¤¤£¤£ª£¤£

sh#3* 3.1.1.1

£¤£¤£¤£¤¤£¤£¤£¤££¤£¤£¤£¤¤£¤£¤£¤££¤£¤£¤£¤¤£¼»¤»¤££¤£¤£¤»¼X£¤£1£3©

1.e1R 2.Rc1 3.Rxc6 Sxc6#

1.e1B 2.Bb4 3.Bxd6 Rxd6#

1.e1S 2.Sf3 3.Sxe5 Bxe5#

1.Sb5 2.Kc5 3.Rc4 Qd6#

1.Sc5 2.Kd5 3.Rd4 Qe6#

1.Sd5 2.Ke5 3.Re4 Qf6#

1.Ka5 2.Sc3 3.Sa4 Sb7#

1.Ka7 2.Sc7 3.Sa8 Rb7#

1.Ra5 2.Ka6 3.Sa7 Bb7#

1.Qxc4 2.Qxd3 3.Qf3 exf3#

1.Qxe2 2.Qe4 3.Qxc4 dxc4#

1.Qxd3 2.Qxe2 3.Qg4+ Rxg4#

1.Sc4 2.Re2 3.Re4 Qf2#

1.Sd1 2.Rf2 3.Rf3 Qe5#

1.Sd3 2.Rb5 3.Rf5 Qe3#

1.Rc1 2.Qe1 3.Kd1 Qd3#

1.Rd1 2.Qf1 3.Ke1 Qe3#

1.Re1 2.Qg1 3.Kf1 Qf3#

1.g4 2.Rh5 3.Reg5 fxe4#

1.exf3 2.Re3 3.Rd3 e4#

1.Qxc8 2.Kd6 3.Rd5 Sxe4#

1.a1R 2.Ra2 3.Rd2 Qf1#

1.a1B 2.Bc3 3.Be1 Qc2#

1.a1S 2.Sc2 3.Kc1 Qxc2 #

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#

1.Sxg5 2.Sxf3 3.Sxh4 Rg5#

1.Rxf4 2.Rxh4 3.Rf4 Bxf4#

1.Bxh5 2.Bg4 3.Bxh3 Sh5#

1...Se3#/Qe2#/Qa4#

1.cxb2 2.b1S 3.Sc3 Se3#

1.cxd2 2.dxe1B 3.Bc3 Qe2#

2.c1R 3.Rc3 Qa4#

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#

T his 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 Miodrag Mladenović Paz Einat 1st Pl. BIT 2014 2nd Pl. BIT 2014 3rd Pl. BIT 2014

Nebojša B. Joksimović Ivo Tominić Franz Pachl 4th Pl. BIT 2014 5th Pl. BIT 2014 6th Pl. BIT 2014

sh#3 3.1.1.1 5+12

£¤£¤£Z£p¤£¤W¤£¤0£¤£¤£¤m¤¤£¤oJ«¤££¤£¤£¼£¤ª£¼2¤«¤W£¤£¼»¤£¤¤£¤£¤£¤Y

sh#3 3.1.1.1 6+15

£¤£¤£¤£H¤»X£X£¤££¼£3¹¤£¤¤¹¤»¤»¤££¤£¤£¤»¤¤£¼£1o¤Y£¤»Z£¬£¼¤£p£¤£J£

sh#3 3.1.1.1 5+13

£¤£¤£¤£¤¤»¼o¼£¤££H»¤£¤W¤¤£¤2¤»¤££¤£¤£¤«Z¤£¤£¤£n£0p£¤£Z«¤¤£¤£X£¤I

sh#3 3.1.1.1 7+8

£¤£¤£¤£¤¤«¤£Z£¤££n£¤«ª£¤¤£J£¤»¤G0ª£3£º£¤¤£¤¹p£¤££¤£¼£¤£¤¤£¤£¤£¤£

sh#3 3.1.1.1 6+11

£¤£¤£¤£3¼»¤¹¤£¤»£¤o¤£º£¤¬I¼£¤£¤£WHW¤»¤£¤¤»¤£¤£¤££¤£¤0¤£¤¤£¤Y¤£¤£

sh#3 3.1.1.1 6+5

£¤£¤£¤£¤¤£¤£¤£J££¤Y¤£¤£¤¤£ª2¤o¤££¤£nW¤£¤¤£¤£¼£¤££º£¤£¤£1¤£¤£H£¤£

1.Qd4 2.Be4 3.Sh6 R:f3#

1.Qe3 2.Sd4 3.Bf7 B:f5#

1.Qe4 2.Se3 3.Se5 R:d5#

1.Qg3 2.Se4 3.Qe5 Qd8#

1.Rh6 2.Be4 3.R:e6 Red7#

1.Ba3 2.Rd4 3.Bc5 Rcd7#

1.Sf4 2.Qe4 3.Ke5 Qc5#

1.Sf6 2.Re4 3.Ke6 Qb3#

1.Rf4 2.Bf6 3.Kd6 Qd4#

1.Bf2 2.Ke3 3.Qd4 Sd5#

1.B:f4 2.Ke5 3.Qd6 Sg4#

1.Q:b6 2.Kc5 3.Bd4 Se4#

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#

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#

Jorma Paavilainen Dragan Stojnić Nikola Predrag 7th Pl. BIT 2014 8th Pl. BIT 2014 9th Pl. BIT 2014

Aleksandr Semenenko Evgeni Bourd Marko Filipović 10th Pl. BIT 2014 11th Pl. BIT 2014 12th Pl. BIT 2014

Valery Semenenko Aleksandr Bulavka Marko Klasinc 13th Pl. BIT 2014 14th Pl. BIT 2014 15th Pl. BIT 2014

sh#3 3.1.1.1 10+10

0¤£¤£¤£¤H£¤£º£¤££º£¤£¤m¤¤£¤£¤£¬£¹º£¤£¤£p¬¹3£¤¹¤£Y¤£¼£Z»¤¤W¤£¤£Jo

sh#3 3.1.1.1 7+9

£¤£¤£¤£¤¤£¤£¤£¤££¤£¤W¤£¤¤£¤«¤o¤£0¤£¼£º£¤¤£¼2ª©º££¤»º£¤£¤¤£pI¬£¤£

sh#3 3.1.1.1 3+7

£¤o¤Yp£¤¤£¼¹J£¤££¤£¤2¤£¤¤£¤£ª£¼££¤£¤0¤£¤¤£¤£¤£¤££¤£¤£¤£¤¤£¤£¤£¤£

sh#3 3.1.1.1 4+9

£¤£¤£¤£¤¤£¬»¤£¤££¤£¤£¤£¤¤£¤©¼»¤£Y¤2n£¼£¤¤W¤£¤£¤££¤£¤£¤o¤¤0¬£¤£¤£

sh#3 3.1.1.1 7+8

£¤£¤£¤£n¤£¤£¤£¤£m¤£¤£¤£¤X£¤£¤£¤©£¼£¤2¤£¤¤0¤£¤£¤»£¤£¼£¼¹¤¤£¤©ZIZ£

sh#3 3.1.1.1 6+10

£¤£¤£¤£¤¤£¤£¤£¤£Y¤£¤m¤£¤¼W¬«º£¤£Y¤2¤£¤0¤p©¼£¤¹¤££¼»¤£¤£¤¤£¤£¤£¤£

sh#3 3.1.1.1 5+5

£¤£¤£¤£H¤£¤£¤»¤££¤£¤£¤£¤¤£¤£¤W¤££¬£¼2¼£¤¤£¤©¤©¤££¤£¤£¤£¤¤0¤£¤£¤£

sh#3 3.1.1.1 7+8

£1£¤£X£¤¤£¤£¤£¤££¤£¤£¤»¤H£¤»3£¼£W¤£¤£¤»¤¤£¤£¤£¤££¤m¤«¬¹¤¤£¤©¤I¤£

sh#3 3.1.1.1 6+6

£¤£¤£¤Y¤¤£¤£¤£¤££¼£¤Iª«¤¤£¤¹p2¤£0¤£¤£¤£º¤£¤£¤¹¤££¤£¤£¤£¤¤£¤£¤W¤£

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#

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#

1.Kf6 2.Qe6 3.Be7 d:e8S#

1.Qc5 2.Kd6 3.Re6 d:c8S#

1.Qf6 2.Bd6 3.Re7 d8S#

1.K:d4 2.Ke4 3.Rd4 Sf6#

1.K:d5 2.Kc6 3.Bd5 Rb6#

1.K:b3 2.Ka3 3.Sb3 Bb2#

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#

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#

1.K:f5 2.Kg6 3.f5 Se5#

1.K:f3 2.Kg3 3.f3 Rg5#

1.K:d3 2.Kc4 3.d3 Sd2#

1.Sd4 2.Qd3 3.Ke4 Qe1#

1.Se4 2.Qf5 3.Kf4 Qc7#

1.Sd3 2.Qf6 3.Kf5 Q:d5#

1.Sf4 2.Rg4 3.Sg6+ f:g4#

1.Bd4 2.Qe4 3.Be5+ f:e4#

1.Kf4 2.Qg4 3.Kf5+ f:g4#

Branislav Ðurašević Mihajlo Milanović Michel Caillaud 16th Pl. BIT 2014 17th Pl. BIT 2014 18th Pl. BIT 2014

Miodrag Radomirović Srećko Radović Ilija Serafimović 19th Pl. BIT 2014 20th Pl. BIT 2014 21st Pl. BIT 2014

Marko Ložajić Milomir Babić Slobodan Šaletić 22nd Pl. BIT 2014 23rd Pl. BIT 2014 24th Pl. BIT 2014

sh#3 3.1.1.1 7+7

£¤Y¤£¤£¤¤£¤£¤£¤££¤£¼Y¤«¤¤¹p2¤£¤££¼£¤£¤0¤¤£¤¹¤¹¤££¤£X£¤£n¤£¤£¤m¤£

sh#3 3.1.1.1 4+7

£¤£¤£¤£¤1£¤£¤»¤££¤»p£¼£¤¤£Z2Z£ª£W¤£¤£¤£¤¤£¤£¤£¤££¤£¤¹¤£¤¤£¤£¤£¤£

sh#3 3.1.1.1 5+5

o¤I¤£¤£¤¤£¤¹¤£¤££¤£¤£¤£¤¤»º¹3Yº0£¤£¤£¤£¤¤£¤£¤£¤££¤£¤£¤£¤¤£¤£¤£¤£

sh#3 3.1.1.1 5+8

Y¤£¤2¤£Z¼£¤£¤£¤££¤¹¼¹º£¤¤£¤G¤£¤££¤£¤£¤£¤¤£¤£¤£¤££¤£¤£¤£pJo¤0¤£¤£

sh#3 3.1.1.1 2+6

£¤£¤G¤£¤¤£¤£¤£Z££¤£¼£¤Y¤¤£¤£¤£¤££¤£1£¼2¤¤£¤£¤£¤££¤£¤£¼£¤¤£¤£¤£¤£

sh#3 3.1.1.1 3+3

£¤£¤2¤£¤¤£¼£¤£¤££¤£n£¤£¤¤£¤£¤G¤££¤£¤£¤£¤1£¤£¤£¤££¼£¤£¤£¤¤£¤£¤£¤£

sh#3 3.1.1.1 3+4

£¤£¤£¤Y¤¤£¤0¤£¤££¤G¤£¤£¤¤£¤£¤£¤££¤£¤£¤Y¤¤£¤£¤»¤2£¤£¤£¤©¤¤£¤£¤£¤£

sh#3 3.1.1.1 4+3

G¤£¤£¤£¤¤£¤£º£¤££¤£¤£¤£¤¤£¤£¤£¤££¤£3£¤£¤¤£¤m¤£¤0»¤£¤£¤£¤¤£¤£¤£¤o

sh#3 3.1.1.1 6+6

£¤£¤£Z£¤¤£¤£¤£¤££¤£¤£¤£¤¤»¤0¤£¼££¤£¤»¤£3¤£º£ºm¤»£¤£¤£º£¤¤£¤£n£¤£

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#

1.K:d5 2.Kc6 3.Rd5 dc8Q#

1.Q:c5 2.Kd6 3.Re5 d8Q#

1.B:d5 2.Ke6 3.Qe8+ de8Q#

1.0-0-0 2.Kb8 3.Ka8 c7#

1.0-0 2.Kh7 3.Rg8 Qh5#

1.Rc8 2.Rc6 3.Ra6 Qa8#

1.Kf5 2.Rg4 3.R7g5 Qf7#

1.Kf3 2.Rg3 3.R7g4 Qe4#

1.Kh3 2.Rg2 3.R7g3 Qh5#

1.b1Q 2.Qb5 3.Qd7 Qf8#

1.b1R 2.Rb8 3.Rd8 Qe6#

1.b1B 2.Ba2 3.Bf7 Qc8#

1.f:g2 2.g1R 3.Rg3 Qh1#

1.R4g5 2.Kg4 3.Kf5 Qe6#

1.Rh4 2.R:g2 3.Rh2 Q:f3#

1.Ke5 2.Kf6 3.Kg7 Qf8#

1.Ke3 2.Kf2 3.Kg1 Qa7#

1.Kc3 2.Kb2 3.Ka1 Qh8#

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#

Dean Miletić Mihailo Savić Zoran Sibinović 25th Pl. BIT 2014 26th Pl. BIT 2014 27th Pl. BIT 2014

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 Solver pts time

1 Marko Filipović 81 70

2 Aleksandr Bulavka 80 78

3 Miodrag Mladenović 80 95

4 Vladimir Podinić 80 100

5 Marko Klasinc 79 119

6 Srećko Radović 79 120

7 Michel Caillaud 78 72

8 Jorma Paavilainen 78 115

9 Branislav Đurašević 76 120

10 Nikola Predrag 75 120

11 Dragan Stojnić 71 120

12 Dean Miletić 66 120

13 Mihailo Savić 60 120

14 Marko Ložajić 59 120

15 Milomir Babić 57 120

16 Mihajlo Milanović 53 120

16 Branko Udovčić 53 120

18 Ivan Bender 51 120

19 Ilija Serafimović 22 120

Each solution = 1 point, max time = 120’

sh#3 3.1.1.1 3+2

£¤£¤£¤£¤¤£¤m¤£J££¤£¤£3£¤¤£¤£¤£¤££¤£¤£¤£¤¤£¤0¤£¤££¤G¤£¤£¤¤£¤£¤£¤£

sh#3 3.1.1.1 8+5

£¤£¤£¤£¤¤£¤£¤£¤Y£¤0¤£¤£¤¤£¤¹¤£¤££¤£¼G¤£¤n£¼£¤£¤££¤©¤»¤£¤¤2¤m¤W¤W

sh#3 3.1.1.1 7+5

£¤£¤£¤£¤¤£¤£¤0¤££¤£¤£¤£¤¤£¤£¤£¤££¤£¤£¤£¼n£º¹º£ªm»¤£3£¤£¼p£¤£¤£¤£

1.Ke7 2.Kd8 3.Qe7 Qc8#

1.Kg5 2.Kh4 3.Qg5 Qh2#

1.Ke5 2.Kd5 3.Qe5 Qc6#

1.Ka2 2.Kb3 3.Kc4 Se3#

1.e:f1B 2.Bc4 3.Ba2 Bh5#

1.Rb7 2.Rb2 3.Ra2 B:e2#

1.K:d3 2.Kc2 3.Kb1 Bf5#

1.K:e3 2.Kf4 3.Kg5 Bc1#

1.K:e3 2.Kf2 3.Kg1 Bc5#

Solvers’ marks

Mar

ko F

ilip

ovi

ć

Ale

ksan

dr

Bu

lavk

a

Mio

dra

g M

lad

eno

vić

Vla

dim

ir P

od

inić

Mar

ko K

lasi

nc

Sreć

ko R

ado

vić

Mic

hel

Cai

llau

d

Jorm

a P

aavi

lain

en

Bra

nis

lav

Đu

raše

vić

Nik

ola

Pre

dra

g

Dra

gan

Sto

jnić

Dea

n M

ileti

ć

Mih

ailo

Sav

ić

Mar

ko L

oža

jić

Milo

mir

Bab

ić

Mih

ajlo

Mila

no

vić

Bra

nko

Ud

ovč

ić

Ivan

Ben

der

Ilija

Ser

afim

ovi

ć

Ave

rage

mar

k

1 Borislav Gadjanski 10 10 8 10 8 10 9 9 8 10 10 10 10 6 10 10 8 7 4 8.79

2 Miodrag Mladenović 6 7

7 8 7 10 8 9 10 8 4 8 8 10 10 9 7 10 8.11

3 Paz Einat 9 10 9 9 9 9 7 9 8 9½ 7 9 9 4 7 6 8 7 8 8.08

4 Nebojša Joksimović 8 6 10 8 9 9 9 8 8 8 3 7 9 9 6 10 9 6 4 7.68

5 Ivo Tominić 8 8 9 6 7 7 6 7 7 5 9 5 8 7 10 9 8 7 7 7.37

6 Franz Pachl 7 7 8 5 10 9 8 10 10 9½ 4 8 8 7 7 9 4 7 2 7.34

7 Jorma Paavilainen 9 9 8 8 5 10 6

7 5 6 5 10 7 8 8 10 7 4 7.33

8 Dragan Stojnić 6 7 8 6 7 10 7 8 9 7

5 10 5 8 7 9 8 1 7.11

9 Nikola Predrag 6 5 8 7 5 8 6 6 9

6 6 10 9 6 6 4 6 10 6.83

10 Aleksandr Semenenko 6 7 8 5 5 9 5 9 8 4½ 6 8 8 7 8 9 6 6 3 6.71

11 Evgeni Bourd 7 8 9 6 7 8 8 8 8 6½ 4 4 9 6 9 3 7 6 4 6.71

12 Marko Filipović

7 8 7 5 7 6 6 7 7½ 3 4 10 7 7 7 9 7 4 6.58

13 Valery Semenenko 6 5 10 7 5 9 6 7 8 8 4 3 7 7 7 8 5 7 1 6.32

14 Aleksandr Bulavka 7

10 8 8 6 3 6 4 6½ 5 4 10 7 7 5 8 6 1 6.19

15 Marko Klasinc 6 6 7 9

5 6 8 8 3½ 1 7 9 9 3 5 5 7 1 5.86

16 Branislav Đurašević 6 5 6 6 5 5 6 6

5½ 5 6 10 8 4 4 6 5 4 5.69

17 Mihajlo Milanović 4 4 8 6 4 6 6 6 8 5½ 5 4 7 10 5

2 6 3 5.53

18 Michel Caillaud 4 4 8 5 5 6

5 8 6½ 5 6 9 7 5 4 2 6 2 5.42

19 Miodrag Radomirović 5 4 7 1 3 5 4 3 4 4½ 3 2 7 6 4 1 3 6 9 4.29

20 Srećko Radović 3 4 8 5 3

6 2 5 5 2 4 6 3 2 2 2 5 8 4.17

21 Ilija Serafimović 4 2 5 3 2 3 5 3 6 6 3 5 2 7 3 3 1 4 3.72

22 Marko Ložajić 3 4 3 1 2 2 4 3 6 4½ 1 1 5

2 3 2 4 6 3.14

23 Milomir Babić 4 3 7 2 2 2 4 1 3 3½ 3 3 3 4

2 1 4 5 3.14

24 Slobodan Šaletić 3 4 2 4 2 1 5 3 2 2½ 2 2 4 2 3 1 3 4 10 3.13

25 Dean Miletić 4 1 3 2 3 2 4 2 6 4 2

1 5 1 2 1 3 7 2.94

26 Mihailo Savić 1 6 6 2 2 1 2 2 2 1 1 1

4 3 2 5 4 3 2.67

27 Zoran Sibinović 2 2 4 1 1 3 1 1 1 1½ 1 1 8 1 1 1 3 3 4 2.13

The Overall Winner of the 10th BPCF

is

Miodrag Mladenović

Solving Composing Total

OSCS Ser-h#3 #2 h#2 Ser-h#3

pl pts pl pts pl pts pl pts pl pts pts

1 Miodrag Mladenović 6 6 3 8 2 10 2 10 34

2 Marko Filipović 2 13 1 13

12 1 27

3 Michel Caillaud 1 17 7 4 7 4

18 1 26

4 Srećko Radović 11 1 6 5 3 8 4 7 20 1 22

5 Aleksandr Bulavka 5 7 2 10

14 1 18

6 Dragan Stojnić 26 1 11 1

1 13 8 3 18

7 Jorma Paavilainen 4 8 8 3 7 4 15

8 Marko Klasinc 9 3 5 6 15 1 10

9 Branislav Djurašević 8 4 9 2 16 1 7

10 Nikola Predrag 10 2 10 1 1 9 2 6

11 Mihajlo Milanović 21 1 16 1 8 3 17 1 6

Belgrade, April 2014.