The BDS Website

Solving Competitions in Early 2013

The beginning of each year sees three major events fo r British solvers to compete in. Solving GM John Nunn, Great Britain's top-rated solver (2741), took part in all three.

The first takes place as a side event at the annual Tata Steel Chess Tournament in Wijk aan Zee. On Saturday 26th January this year the solvers were given just three hours in which to solve nine endgame studies. Director Luc Palmans was assisted by Yochanan Afek who, as studies sub-editor of The Problemist, had convenient access to previously unpublished studies. The following study drew high praise from Nunn.

Peter Krug

The Problemist, 2013

1. Nf7! 1. g5+? Kxe5 2.Nf3+ Ke6 3.Nxh4 Kxd7 and 1.Rf7+? Kxe5 2.Nf3+ Kd6 3.Nxh4 c2 are both easy draws. 1....Be7+ 2.Rxe7 2.Ke8? Qxg4 3.Nh6 Qe4 4.Ng8+ Kg5 5.Nxe7 c2 is drawn. 2...Qxg4 3.Bh3! 3.Re6+? Qxe6 4.Nxe6 c2 and Black is okay. 3...Qxh3 4.Rc7 Qh1 4...Qg2 5.Ra7 Qf1 transposes. 5.Ra7! 5 Rd7? Qa8+ 6.Rd8 Qxd8+ 7.Nxd8 is again just a draw. 5...Qf1 6.Ra2!! Zugzwang! 6...g5 6...c2 7.Rxc2 and Black can't stop both threatened mates. 7.Rh2 Threatening another two mates and Black has no further resource.

John Nunn won with a score of 43 (out of 45, in just 2 hours, 15 minutes). The rest of the top ten were: 2. Piet Peelen (NED) 39, 3. Guus Rol (NED) 37, 4. Joost Michielsen (NED) 36, 5. Piotr Murdzia (POL) 36, 6. Oleg Pervakov (RUS) 35, 7. Wouter van Rijn (NED) 33, 8. Alina I'Ami (ROM) 32, 9. Martin van Essen (NED) 30, 10. Harold van der Heijden (NED) 29. Piotr Murdzia, who came fifth, is the current World Chess Solving Champion.

The next day Wijk aan Zee played host to the Dutch end of the annual International Solving Contest. In this, solvers all over the world simultaneously solve the same set of chess problems and studies under the watchful eyes of local directors. Their solutions are sent away to a central director for marking, with the results appearing some little while later. In this event Nunn was unlucky. His final score was 58/60 (in a very fast time of 179 minutes), in fourth place behind 1. GM Kacper Piorun (POL) 60 (in 234 minutes), 2. GM Jorma Paavilainen (FIN) 60 (239), 3. GM Bojan Vuckovic (SRB) 59 (218).

So, with such a fine result, why was Nunn unlucky? It turned out that one of the studies used had a dual (an alternative move that also won) towards the end of its solution. Nunn spotted it and deduced, with justification, that this couldn't be the composer's intention, so tried another black move at the previous ply, after which he found a unique sequence ending in a nice mate. Feeling that this was the intention, he wrote it down without writing down the line with the dual. He was docked two points; a decision that was not changed after protest. As there is no right to appeal in this competition (unlike in the World and European Championships), he then had to settle, but if the protest had been upheld he would have won outright, thanks to his faster time.

A further explanation is perhaps needed. Some years ago, it was informally decided that for endgame studies in solving events, only the composer's main line would carry any marks. This was done because it was the only line that the composer had spent time ensuring was dual-free, thus making things easier for everybody involved. So, we mark the main line because it is dual-free, not just because it is the main line. In this case the central director stated that, despite the dual, the composer's main line would remain the only line to carry any marks. The central problem here, of course, is that the study wasn't properly tested before use. If it had been, it would have been rejected.

Having made that criticism , we should have sympathy for the director. He is unpaid and has to find sound and suitable problems and studies. I understand that in this case the flawed study was a last-minute re-placement for one previously selected and found to be unsound. Such errors are going to happen as directors are only human, Common errors, such as this one, should be covered in the rules, not left to the director's discretion.

The third event of 2013 was the final of the British Chess Solving Championship, sponsored by Winton Capital Management, which took place in the palatial surroundings of School Hall at Eton College on Saturday 23rd February. The 35 competitors (including the current World Chess Solving Champion and a sprinkling of foreign solvers partakinq in the 'Open' event) had to solve a selection of chess problems and endgame studles in six timed rounds. The first round is three 'mates in 2' in 20 minutes. Last year the fastest solver handed in after just nine minutes, so this year I tried to make them more difficult and I am glad to say that I managed to keep the best solvers sitting down for a whole 17 minutes!

There were no surprises in the first round, but there was a big one in the second round, which consisted of two relatively simple 'mates in 3'. Here is the second.

M Gambin

El Ajedrez Espanol, 1962-1964

Show solution

1.Rg8  (2.Rxf7+ Rxf7 3.Rg6#)

1...Bd4 2.e4    &    3.Ng4#
1...Bc3 2.Be4   &    3.Ng4#
1...Bb2 2.Nxd6  &    3.Ng4#
1...Ba1 2.Qc2   &    3.Ng4#

After the key, Black can defend against the threat by vacating e5. Wherever the bishop goes it blocks a line or square for another black piece, which would otherwise be able to check the white king after White's second move. Problemists call this 'check prevention'. The surprise was that Jonathan Mestel wrote down 1.Rg1 as the key. I suspect this was a clerical error rather than any other kind of mistake, but, because it was a legal move, we couldn't give him any points. It was an expensive slip, as without it Mestel would have finished clear second.

Round three, the endgame studies, caused no trouble for the top solvers and I'll present them here in a future column.

The second surprise of the event came in round four, the helpmates. In this type of problem, Black plays first and helps White to mate him in the number of moves specified. This problem was the second of two that were set.

Mirko Degenkolbe &
Franz Pachl

1st HM., StrateGems, 2004

Show solution

1.Qb2 exf6  2.Kxc3 f7  3.Bg5 f8=Q 4.Bd2 Qc5#
1.Qd6 Nxe2+ 2.Kxe5 Nf4 3.Bc4 c3   4.Bd5 Ng6#

Helpmate expert Michael McDowell handed in after just 13 minutes, but John Nunn, who is normally very quick on the helpmates, completely failed to solve this problem. The reason may be that, unlike McDowell, he didn't spot the composers' idea, which is the Zilahi Theme where a piece which is captured in one solution mates in another solution.

Round 5, the moremovers (mate in more than 3 moves), were tricky, and a few of the leading solvers fell back. Then the third and final surprise came in the last round, the selfmates. I had selected a simple selfmate in 2 moves and a very tough problem in six moves. I expected the top solvers to score at least some points on it, but I didn't really expect any of them to completely solve it in the time available. Belgian solving GM Eddy van Beers proved me wrong, but was the only solver to get full marks.

From the time this event started over thirty years ago until last year, there had only ever been five British Champions: Graham Lee, John Nunn, Jonathan Mestel, David Friedgood and Michael McDowell. Last year a sixth was added to that list - Colin McNab. This year, Colin had been solving steadily for the first five rounds, not dropping a point. He failed to fully solve that very difficult selfmate in the final round, getting one point less than Nunn in that round, but his performance in previous rounds was enough to maintain his lead.

Leading scores were: 1. IM Colin McNab 61/65 , 2. GM John Nunn 57, 3. GM Eddy van Beers (BEL) 55, 4. GM Jonathan Mestel 54, 5.Ian Watson 53, 6. FM Michael McDowell 52½, 7. GM Piotr Murdzia (POL) 51, 8. IM David Friedgood 45, 9. GM Dolf Wissmann (NED) 41½, 10-11. John Gemmell, Roddy McKay 40½ (titles given are solving titles).

For the first time that I can remember in any competition, five British solvers finished ahead of a reigning World Solving Champion! Colin McNab finished in front of five solving Grandmasters, including the current and two former World Solving Champions. He turned in a rating performance of 2800, but, because of the rules (revolving round the ratings of others taking part), didn't obtain a GM norm. Congratulations too to Ian Watson, who achieved a rating performance of 2600.