Gligor Denkovski

Memorial Tourney

2017–2018
Gligor Denkovski Memorial Tourney
2017–2018

Skopje 2018
Gligor Denkovski Memorial Tourney 2017–2018
Organized by Ivan Denkovski

Edited and published by Ivan Denkovski

Skopje 2018

Digital edition • August 2020

 Gligor Denkovski Memorial Tourney 2017–2018

The formal chess composing tourney dedicated to the memory of my father Gligor
Denkovski (20 August 1946 – 15 January 2015) was announced on 20 August 2016,
to commemorate his 70th birthday. There were three sections:

A) Orthodox proof games, showing a combination of at least one typical retro theme
and at least one theme or motif traditionally seen in other problem genres.
Judge: Kostas Prentos (USA).

B) Orthodox helpmate threemovers (h#2.5–3) with free theme.

Judge: Nikola Predrag (Croatia).

C) Orthodox selfmates (s#2–n) with free theme.

Judge: Miodrag Mladenović (Serbia).

The closing date was 31 March 2017.

64 chess composers from 23 countries took part in the tourney, with a total of 97
submitted chess problems.

This report is published in January 2018. The awards are open for objections within
the usual 3-month period and will become final on 30 April 2018.

Ivan Denkovski

3
 Participants
With number of entries + number of joint entries (*) in each section.
Fadil Abdurahmanović (Bosnia and Herze-
govina) – B (1*)
Nikolay Akimov (Kazakhstan) – C (1)
Alberto Armeni (Italy) – C (2)
Aleksandr Azhusin (Russia) – C (1)
Milomir Babić (Serbia) – C (1)
Valery Barsukov (Russia) – B (2)
Claude Beaubestre (France) – A (1)
Anton Bidleň (Slovakia) – B (4)
Sergey Borodavkin (Ukraine) – C (1*)
Jarosław Brzozowicz (Poland) – C (2)
Andrew Buchanan (USA) – A (1*)
Michel Caillaud (France) – A (1), C (1)
János Csák (Hungary) – B (2)
Nicolas Dupont (France) – A (1)
Mark Erenburg (Israel) – C (1)
Eugene Fomichev (Russia) – B (1), C (1)
Andrey Frolkin (Ukraine) – A (2)
Mikhail Gershinsky (Ukraine) – B (3*)
Dan-Constantin Gurgui (Romania) – B (2)
Georgi Hadži-Vaskov (Macedonia) – C (2)
Jozef Holubec (Slovakia) – C (1)
Valery Ivanov (Russia) – B (1**)
Aleksey Ivunin (Russia) – B (5*+1**)
Živko Janevski (Macedonia) – B (1+1*)
Christer Jonsson (Sweden) – B (2)
Jorge Kapros (Argentina) – B (2*)
Mikhail Khramtsevich (Belarus) – C (1)
Mark Kirtley (USA) – A (1+1*)
Emil Klemanič (Slovakia) – B (1)
Marek Kolčák (Slovakia) – A (1)
Mykola Kolesnik (Ukraine) – B (1*)
Marjan Kovačević (Serbia) – B (1)
4
Gennady Kozyura (Ukraine) – C (1)
Zoltán Labai (Slovakia) – B (1), C (1)
Jorge Lois (Argentina) – A (1*), B (2*)
Zlatko Mihajloski (Macedonia) – B (1)
Mikhail Mishko (Ukraine) – C (1+1*)
Karol Mlynka (Slovakia) – B (1), C (1)
Dieter Müller (Germany) – B (5), C (5)
Emanuel Navon (Israel) – B (1*)
Wilfried Neef (Germany) – C (1)
Per Olin (Finland) – A (1)
Roberto Osorio (Argentina) – A (1*)
Charles Ouellet (Canada) – C (1)
Jorma Paavilainen (Finland) – C (1)
Vladimir Pankov (Russia) – C (1)
Aleksandr Pankratiev (Russia) – B (8*+1**)
Aleksey Popov (Russia) – C (1)
Nikola Predrag (Croatia) – C (1*)
Paul Răican (Romania) – A (2)
Mečislovas Rimkus (Lithuania) – B (1)
Andrey Selivanov (Russia) – C (1)
Aleksandr Semenenko (Ukraine) – B (1)
Valery Semenenko (Ukraine) – B (1*)
Ilija Serafimović (Serbia) – B (1)
Nikola Stolev (Macedonia) – B (1)
Viktor Syzonenko (Ukraine) – B (2)
Slobodan Šaletić (Serbia) – B (2)
Pierre Tritten (France) – B (1)
Sven Trommler (Germany) – B (2), C (2)
Branko Udovčić (Croatia) – C (1*)
Viktor Volchek (Belarus) – C (1)
Menachem Witztum (Israel) – B (1*)
Vidadi Zamanov (Azerbaijan) – B (2)
 Section A (Proof Games) Award
by Kostas Prentos

It was an honor and pleasure to be invited to judge the proof games section of Gligor Denkovski
MT 2017, by his son Ivan. Gligor Denkovski, in whose memory this tourney was organized, would
be intrigued by the proposed theme, asking for “Orthodox proof games, showing a combination of
at least one typical retro theme and at least one theme or motif traditionally seen in other problem
genres”.

Ivan Denkovski acted as the tourney director; he sent me 12 anonymous diagrams to consider for
the award. The reason for the small number of entries might be the rather difficult theme, or the
general decline in the number of active PG composers. In any case, it was quite interesting to see
how the participants would interpret the thematic requirements. Although some of the entries did
not demonstrate a clear distinction between the retro part and the themes transcribed from other
genres, I accepted all of them as thematic, regardless of the degree they complied with the set re-
quirements.

Before presenting the winners, let me write a few comments about the problems considered, but
not selected for the award:

PG 12,0 (13+15) Ke1/Ke8 showed in clear style and good economy the combination of a Pronkin
and a Rundlauf. There are several problems with similar content, the quickest being problem A in
the Appendix.

PG 13,0 (15+13) Kb3/Kb8 was essentially anticipated by B. The added Bristols for both sides be-
tween the Queen and King were a rather prosaic method to finish the solution and did not impress
me.

PG 23,5 (13+15) Kh5/Kc6 was a good problem with strong content, but unfortunately anticipated
by C.

PG 31,0 (14+15) Kc1/Ke7 had the promotions that formed a Babson task side by side, but this
was achieved with 8 extra-set pieces and a completely symmetrical solution, almost up to the end.
Although problem D shows the Babson as an aggregate of two AUWs, it is an impressive task,
considering that one side performs a Ceriani/Frolkin AUW.

Finally, A→B 10,0 (3+13) Kc1/Kc5 had obvious virtues: The Lois theme was performed with 4-
move round trips that were geometrically perfect (rhombus and square), but unevenly spread be-
tween the two phases. Similarly, the supporting AUW was mismatched and resulted in obvious
promoted pieces in both phases; an expensive price to pay in this genre.

5
 Prize Honorable Mention 1st Commendation
Michel Caillaud Nicolas Dupont Paul Răican

PG 17,0 (13+15) PG 30,0 (13+15) PG 19,5 (10+12)

Prize: Michel Caillaud

1.g4 c5 2.g5 Qa5 3.g6 hxg6 4.Bg2 Rh3 5.Bd5 Rf3 6.Bb3 c4 7.exf3 cxb3 8.c4 Qh5 9.c5 d5 10.c6
Bg4! 11.c7 Sd7 12.c8=B Sb6 13.Bf5 Qh8 14.Bd3 0-0-0 15.Bf1 Kc7 16.Bh3 Bc8 17.Be6 fxe6.

The 3 visible captures for Black and 1 for White account for all missing pieces. One of the cap -
tured white units was the wPc2, which must have promoted on c8 after the bPc7 left the c-file. All
of Black’s moves can be counted in the diagram: 6 moves for the pawns + 2 for Rh8 + 3 for Qd8 +
2 for Sb8 + 2 for Bc8 to allow the promotion on c8 and Rd8, leaving only 2 moves for Kc7 and
Rd8. So, Black must have castled.

The bQd8 could reach h8 only after the bRh8 had already left its home square; hence, also after
h7xg6. Therefore, the only 3-move route left for bQd8→h8 is via a5 and h5. The pawn move d7-
d5 can only be played after Qa5-h5. The bBc8 had to vacate c8 for the wPc2 to promote and this
could only be done after d7-d5. At the moment of the promotion, the bQd8 had already left d8, so
the type of the promoted piece could not be a Queen or Rook that would check the bK, nor a
Knight that would either check the bK from d6, or collide with the black Knight on b6.

Having decided that the promoted piece must be a Bishop, there is one more detail to illuminate:
The white Bishop, after its promotion on c8, must leave the diagonal c8-h3 to allow 0 -0-0, and
eventually sacrifice itself on e6. Trying to save a tempo move, like Qh5-h8, for the end does not
work. The return of the black Bishop to c8 must be the last move played, before the final sequence
17.Be6 fxe6. The black Bishop has to move far enough on the diagonal to allow Bc8-f5 for White
and at the same time leave room on h3 for the wB to ambush its return. Only the square g4 satis -
fies these conditions. The narrow path followed by the promoted wB is Bc8-f5-d3-f1-h3-e6, per-
forming a Phoenix on c8, a Pronkin on f1 and a Ceriani/Frolkin when it is captured on e6. The se-
quence Bf5-d3-f1-h3 is the difficult Rehm pericritical maneuver, known to us mainly from help-
play problems.

I could not have hoped for an example more suitable for this thematic tourney than this gem.
While Pronkin and Ceriani/Frolkin are classical retro themes, the Rehm pericritical maneuver
comes straight from the helpmate and is always an appealing effect. I was aware of another proof

6
game that accomplished a Rehm maneuver before (see problem E), but the differences are unques-
tionable. Here, the thematic Bishop is promoted and in addition to Rehm, also executes the retro
themes listed above. A beautiful problem and a clear winner!

Honorable Mention: Nicolas Dupont

1.g4 c5 2.g5 c4 3.g6 c3 4.gxh7 cxb2 5.c4 f5 6.c5 f4 7.c6 f3 8.c7 fxe2 9.f4 e5 10.f5 Ke7 11.f6+
Kd6 12.f7 Be7 13.f8=S g5 14.Se6 g4 15.Sd4 g3 16.Sc6 g2 17.Kf2 e1=R 18.Qg4 e4 19.Se2 e3+
20.Kf3 exd2 21.Sg3 d1=S 22.Be3 g1=Q 23.Sd2 b1=B 24.Bg2 Bc2 25.Rb1 Sc3 26.Rb4 Rb1
27.Sb3 Qe1 28.Rg1 Se2 29.Bh1 Bd1 30.Rg2 Sg1+.

AUW is a popular and occasionally challenging theme. When both the promoted and original
pieces appear in a proof game simultaneously, the result is trivial and easy to achieve. The com -
poser of this problem disregards the form, leaving 5 extra-set pieces on the board, but focuses on
the interaction of the pieces after their promotion: The four black promoted pieces cyclically ex -
change places in the course of the solution: Bb1→Sd1→Qg1→Re1→Bb1. This was the theme of
the 10th WCCT. One of the entries of that tourney (see problem F), achieved a similar interchange
among three promoted pieces, but without any obvious promoted force. Although F is superior,
based on the difficulty to achieve the interchange with standard material, this problem has merit,
too.

All promotions are completed before the start of the interchange. The type of promoted pieces and
the relevant squares are nicely forced. It is worth trying various cooking methods (e.g., 19…g1=S
20.Sg3 Se2) that come very close. Once it becomes clear there is no time to promote to a Bishop
on d1, it is easy to assign the squares for each promoted piece: The Bishop must have come from
b1 and the Knight from d1. The remaining two pieces must have promoted on e1 and g1, and the
shortest path brings the Rook to e1 and the Queen to g1.

The timing and precision of the solution are ample compensation for the extra-set material and
double check at the end. The more I analyzed this problem, the more I appreciated the composer’s
technique.

1st Commendation: Paul Răican

1.g4 b5 2.g5 Bb7 3.g6 Bd5 4.gxh7 Bxa2 5.hxg8=Q Bxb1 6.Rxa7 Rxh2 7.Ra3 Ra4 8.Rh3 Rh4 9.c3
Bh7 10.f4 g6 11.Qxg6 Bg7 12.Qgc2 f5 13.e4 fxe4 14.Bd3 exd3 15.Qf3 dxc2 16.d3 Rd2 17.Se2
Kf7 18.0-0 Bd4+ 19.Kh2 Bf2 20.Sd4.

The composer’s effort to satisfy both parts of the thematic requirements is commendable. The retro
theme is a Ceriani/Frolkin, combined with a variety of crossover themes: Bicolor Bristol and Loyd
clearances and two anticipatory self-pins (8.Rh3 and 17.Se2 to allow 19.Kh2) ending with an indi-
rect unpin. Some of these themes, such as the Loyd clearance and the anticipatory self-pin of the
Knight that is unpinned and moves again are more convincing than others, e.g., the Bristol that
was played en passant, or the self-pin of the Rook that is parked on its diagram spot h3. All in all, a
solid proof game.

7
2nd Commendation: Andrew Buchanan & Mark Kirtley 2nd Commendation
Andrew Buchanan
a) 1.a4 f5 2.a5 f4 3.Ra4 f3 4.exf3 c6 5.Bd3 Qc7 6.Qe2 Qg3
Mark Kirtley
7.hxg3 Kf7 8.Rh5 Kf6 9.Rf5+ Kg6 10.Qxe7 Sa6 11.Be4 Sc5
12.a6 h6 13.Rg5#.
b) 1.a4 c6 2.a5 Qc7 3.Ra4 Qg3 4.hxg3 f5 5.Rh5 f4 6.Rg5 f3
7.exf3 Kf7 8.Bd3 Ke6 9.Bf5+ Kd5 10.Qe2 Sa6 11.Qxe7 Sc5
12.a6 h6 13.Be4#.

Although there is no distinct retro theme and reciprocal inter-

ferences have been featured before in single phase PGs (exam-
ple G shows 2 complete Grimshaws), this problem makes a
good impression. The two solutions are adequately differenti- PG 12,5 (16+13)
ated. A small change in the diagram helps achieve an Orthogo- b) Kg6→d5
nal Diagonal Transformation with reciprocal interferences. The
white Bishop and Rook form half a Grimshaw in each phase,
staging the illusion of a helpmate with double-check mates.

Appendix – Quoted Compositions

A. B. (P1009502) C. (P1067900)
Henrik Juel Gligor Denkovski Michel Caillaud
StrateGems 2001 Die Schwalbe 2003 1st Pr. Messigny TT 2005

PG 9,5 (15+15) PG 17,0 (15+13) PG 21,0 (15+13)

A. 1.g4 e5 2.Bg2 e4 3.Kf1 e3 4.Bc6 dxc6 5.Kg2 Qd3 6.exd3 e2 7.Qf1 e1=Q 8.f4 Qe7 9.Kf2 Qd8
10.Ke1.

B. 1.f4 e5 2.f5 Qg5 3.f6 Se7 4.fxe7 Sc6 5.exf8=R+ Ke7 6.Rxc8 Sd4 7.Rg8 Rf8 8.Kf2 Ke8 9.Qe1
Qd8 10.Ke3 g5 11.Rg6 hxg6 12.Qg3 Rh4 13.Kf2 Rfh8 14.Ke1 Sf3+ 15.Kd1 Ra4 16.Qf2 Rhh4
17.Qe1 Rhb4.

C. 1.h4 h5 2.Rh3 Rh6 3.Rd3 Rf6 4.Rd5 Rf3 5.exf3 g5 6.Bb5 g4 7.Bc6 dxc6 8.Sc3 Qd6 9.Sce2
Kd7 10.c3 Ke6 11.Qb3 Qe5 12.Kd1 Kf5 13.fxg4+ Ke4 14.Kc2 Qd4 15.Kb1 Kd3 16.Qa3 Kc4
17.gxh5 Qc5 18.d3+ Kb5 19.Bf4 Kb6 20.Bh2 Qd6 21.Sf4 Qd8.

8
 E. (P1295798) F.
D. (P1004022) Manfred Rittirsch Dmitry Baibikov
Thierry Le Gleuher 1st Pr. H.P. Rehm 70 JT 8th–9th Pl. 10th WCCT
1st Pr. Probleemblad 2001 2013–14 2016–2017

PG 34,5 (14+10) PG 11,5 (14+15) PG 22,5 (11+12)

D. 1.a4 h5 2.a5 h4 3.Ra4 h3 4.Rb4 hxg2 5.h4 f5 6.h5 f4 7.h6 f3 8.h7 fxe2 9.f4 g5 10.f5 Bh6 11.f6
Kf8 12.f7 Kg7 13.f8=R g4 14.Rf2 g3 15.Sf3 g1=Q 16.Rfh2 Qe3 17.Bh3 Qb3 18.cxb3 g2 19.Qc2
g1=B 20.Qc6 Bb6 21.d4 e5 22.Be3 e4 23.Kd2 e1=S 24.Kc3 Sd3 25.Rc1 Sc5 26.Bg1 e3 27.dxc5 e2
28.cxb6 e1=R 29.bxa7 Re8 30.axb8=B Ra6 31.Be6 Rb6 32.a6 Se7 33.a7 Reg8 34.a8=S Qf8
35.hxg8=Q+.

E. 1.b3 e5 2.Ba3 Bb4 3.Qc1 Se7 4.Qb2 0-0 5.Qc3 Kh8 6.Qc6 G. (P1068360)
dxc6 7.Bb2 Qd3 8.Bd4 Bf5 9.Bc5 Rc8 10.Bd6 Bc5 11.b4 cxd6 Reto Aschwanden
12.bxc5. 2nd Pr. Champagne TT,
Eretria 2005
F. 1.e4 h5 2.Qg4 hxg4 3.b4 g3 4.b5 gxh2 5.b6 hxg1=S 6.bxa7
Rxh1 7.axb8=R Ra5 8.a4 Rah5 9.a5 g5 10.a6 Bg7 11.a7 Be5
12.Ba6 bxa6 13.d4 Bb7 14.d5 Bc6 15.d6 Ba4 16.dxc7 Bd6
17.c8=B Qb6 18.a8=Q Qe3+ 19.fxe3 Kd8 20.Bb7+ Kc7
21.Rc8+ Kb6 22.Qb8 Ka5 23.Ba8.

G. 1.g4 e5 2.g5 Bb4 3.g6 hxg6 4.Sc3 Rh3 5.Se4 Rc3 6.d4 Sh6
7.Kd2 Rxc2+ 8.Kd3 Bc3 9.Kc4 b5+ 10.Kc5 Bb7 11.Bg5 Bd5
12.Qb1 Bb3 13.axb3 Qc8 14.Ra6 Qb7 15.Rf6 Ke7 16.Rxf7+
Ke6 17.Bf6 Kf5 18.Sd6+ Kf4. PG 18,0 (14+14)

9
 Section B (Helpmates) Award
by Nikola Predrag

Exceptionally amiable personality of Gligor Denkovski lives in memory, the same as I’ve had the
luck to experience during occasional meetings. So I was greatly honored and touched by the invi-
tation to judge this tourney. My gratitude to Ivan Denkovski for that honor has been deepened by
his tremendous assistance through exploring the anticipations. This work was of crucial impor-
tance for the judgment.

52 entries had been initially received but one of them was later withdrawn by its author (as being
published elsewhere in the meantime). The quality had looked as average before Ivan started with
the search for possible precedents. The search was done several times, from several aspects, and
each time some new precedents have been found. And, the list of candidates for the award was
sorely shortened.

There were several interesting original attempts (in the idea) which have lost their main substance
in the realization.

Many entries went for mixing the well known ideas to create a “new combination”. This might be
enough for publishing as “an original” but for an award, the new alloy should bring forth some
brand new intrinsic property of the position and play.

Also, various flaws in the construction and economy, especially of the thematic mechanisms, have
disturbed a convincing realization of some good ideas.

The aesthetic principles may depend on personal preferences, and a judge should not impose his
own taste to a creative work of the others. However, the judge’s duty is not just to analyze and
comment the entries, for after all, there must be some certain criterion for the ranking. So, “how
this piece motivates the play?”, that is the question about the realization. Subtle motivations de-
serve investing a move and some material, while brutality and banality don’t.

Thrill and interdependence of black & white help-play animate the dry patterns.

Eventually, only five entries present the original and well balanced idea & realization.

Another four entries tended to upgrade their precedents by some original details but their impure
realization restrains them close to the realm of unconvincing, barely for a commendation in this
tourney.

A few more entries could have been commended, since a pretty good idea is perhaps not “outbal-
anced” by a rather bad realization. But this actually suggests that the improvements are possible,
so the authors should strive for the optimum and maybe higher distinctions.

10
 1st Prize 2nd Prize 1st Honorable Mention
Marjan Kovačević Sven Trommler János Csák

h#3 3.1.1… (4+14) h#3 2.1.1… (3+9) h#2,5 2.1.1… (6+6)

b) Kc5→d4

1st Prize: Marjan Kovačević

1.Bg1 Bxf6 2.Bc5 Bd8 3.Rd6 Sxa5#; 1.Rh7 Bxf4 2.Rc7 Be3 3.Bd6 Sd8#;
1.Qd3 Bh4! 2.Kb5 Bf2 3.Sc6 Sd6# (1…Bxf6? … 3…Rxd6!; 1…Bxf4? … 3…Bxd6!)

3 model mates by wS, supported actively by wBg5. A pair of similar phases does work, while the
3rd phase would fail, due to the gate-openings for the same black pieces. So, the “contrasting ef-
fects” merge the real and virtual play. But the nature of the helpmate genre asks for a convincing
principle that might unify the real and virtual features. Here, the various attempts reveal the viva-
cious and thrilling character of the skilfully constructed position and introduce the main features
that motivate the real play*. Therefore, the virtual effects are not accidental, they appear as suffi-
ciently thematic.

There’s also the cyclic shift of flight-preventions (c7/d6/c5 by wB/bR/bB) between the phases
1.Bg1 & 1.Rh7.

* 1.Sc8? Bxf4 2.Sb6 Bc4 3.Qc5 Sd8+(Sa5+) 4.Rxd8+!(Qxa5!)

1.f5? Bd8 2.Bg1(Rc1) Ke7 3.Bc5+?(Rc5) Sa5+??
1.Qc4? Bxf6 2.Kb5 Bd4!? – motivated to disconnect Rd1 but accidentally activates Rh6.
The main features of the position, with clever shifts and relevant interpretation of the effects, will
shape the solving strategy (bK’s cross-flights & interference on black lines).

2nd Prize: Sven Trommler

1.Bh4+ Bf1 2.Kd7 Kc2 3.Be7 Bh3#; 1.Rb7+ Rc2 2.Kd8 Kc1 3.Re7 Rc8#

On the diagram, wK can escape from both checking lines and wB/wR can choose the arrival when
departing from the future mating line. But interdependence of B/W play determines first the check-
parrying arrival by wB/wR and later the self-unpinning escape of wK. Relatively simple but re-
markably efficient and economical way to motivate the precise play. In their passive phase, Be1 &
Rh1 prevent 2...Kxe1, allowing only square c1 to wK for the self-unpin. It’s a pity that Ba4 & Rb3
are completely superfluous in their passive phase.

11
Unfortunately, the reciprocity of thematic black mechanism* would probably essentially spoil the
overall economy and elegance. And the neat elegance of both the idea & realization holds this
meredith so high. * Illustration – W: Be6, Pa5, Pe4, Kf3, Ra2; B: Pe7, Rf7, Qh7, Kb4, Bf4, Pc3,
Ph3, Re2, Bd1

1st Honorable Mention: János Csák

a) 1…Bc8! (Rb7?) 2.Kb6!! Rb7+!! 3.Ka6 Rb5#; 1…Bd5 2.Sa6 b4+ 3.Kb6!! Rb7#
b) 1…Rf7! (Bf5?) 2.Ke4!! Bf5+!! 3.Kf3 Bd3#; 1…Rd7+ 2.Ke4!! Rd5 3.Sf3 Bf5#

Either bK’s flights to a6/f3 will be disabled, for mates by moves Rh7-b7/Be6-f5, or these same
moves will enable these same flights. A whiff of paradox in a meredith.

2nd Honorable Mention 3rd Honorable Mention 1st Commendation

Alexandr Semenenko Vidadi Zamanov Viktor Syzonenko

h#3 2.1.1… (3+8) h#3 2.1.1… (6+9) h#3 3.1.1… (4+16)

2nd Honorable Mention: Alexandr Semenenko

1.Sg6! (S8~?) f8=B! 2.Kf2 Be7 3.Ke3 Bc5#; 1.Se6! (S8~?) f8=R! 2.Kh4 Rf7 3.Kh5 Rxh7#

Departure of bSf8 enables the both required promotions but the arrival disables one of the planned
mates. Meredith showing a very efficient simplicity of the mechanism for dual avoidance.

3rd Honorable Mention: Vidadi Zamanov

1.Rxc5 Sxc5+ 2.Kd6 Bb3 3.Kxc5 Se4#; 1.Sxf5+ Sxf5 2.Ke6 Bf3 3.Kxf5 Sd4#

“Remote Zajic” is realized using 2 white Pawns that respectively prevent the bK’s approach, thus
motivating B1. This makes each of these Ps a crucial element of the thematic mechanism in one
respective phase, but unfortunately futile for mating in the other phase. 1.Re4xc5 also unguards e4.
So the original upgrade of “Zajic” by “Chumakov” is not absolutely convincing. Zilahi, chameleon
echo model mates.

1st Commendation: Viktor Syzonenko

1.Rxf1+ Rxf1 2.Qe6 Rf4 3.Kd6 Rxd4#; 1.Sxg3+ Sxg3 2.Qf3 Se2 3.Ke4 Sxc3#; 1.Bxe1 Bxe1
2.Kc4 Ba5 3.Qd5 Sd2#

12
bBc3 may not stand on a5 because of the cooks, and Bc3xe1 clears the line e1–a5 for wB. So, the
motivation for that move is not purely to let wB to e1, and the cyclic unblocking is not purely mo -
tivated as a whole. The precedents have shown the most interesting features of such a cycle and
the economy is not good, except for 3 nice selfblocks by bQ.

2nd Commendation
Valery Ivanov 4th Commendation
Alexey Ivunin 3rd Commendation Fadil Abdurahmanović
Alexandr Pankratiev Viktor Syzonenko Živko Janevski

h#2,5 2.1.1… (5+7) h#3 4.1.1… (4+5) h#3 3.1.1… (5+8)

2nd Commendation: Valery Ivanov, Alexey Ivunin & Alexandr Pankratiev

1…Sf2 2.bxa2 Kxa2 3.Rg1 Be5#; 1…Sf4 2.Sxa1 Kxa1 3.Rh1 Rxg2#

wK has a flight on c1, but must not eliminate the blocker of g1/h1, and if a selfblock comes first,
the flight c1 is lost (bSc2 could then interfere on 1st rank but too late for wK). In order to save bR,
one of the potential mating pieces must be sacrificed for creating a new flight. Impure Sc2xa1 is
also a gate-opening. Zilahi, meredith, model mates.

3rd Commendation: Viktor Syzonenko

1.Qc6 Re4 2.Bc5 Se2 3.Sd6 Sc3#; 1.Se5 Rf7 2.Ke6 Se4 3.Qd5 Sxg5#; 1.Be5 Re6 2.Bd4 Se2 3.g4
Sf4#; 1.Qb5 Re6 2.Bb4 Rd6+ 3.Kc5 Se4#

4 echo-solutions in meredith, with selfblocks by the mechanism of same 3 black pieces, seem to
have no precedent. But the scheme needs the outsider bPg5 which suddenly becomes active just
for one solution. With the repeated wSg3-e2, it all figures less than 4 distinct solutions and more
than 3 thematic black pieces.

4th Commendation: Fadil Abdurahmanović & Živko Janevski

1.Rxe4 Bg7 2.Qd4 Rd8 3.Re3 Rxd4#; 1.Kxe4 Be7 2.Qd3 Re8 3.Ke3 Bg5#; 1.Kc4 Bd6 2.Rd3 Rb8
3.Kd4 Rb4#

Cyclic Platzwechsel through 3 phases, weak economy for “non-thrilling” gate opening in W1, but
at least offering some thrill about wPe4 in two phases: 1.Kxe4(Kd2?) Be7!(Bd6?).

13
 Section C (Selfmates) Award
by Miodrag Mladenović

Since I knew Gligor personally I’ve been honored to be a judge of this tournament. He was a great
person and good friend and I always enjoyed looking into his problems. I’ll miss him a lot.

From neutral judge Ivan Denkovski I received 34 problems without author names. The overall
quality of problems was very good. After reviewing them I decided to rank 10 problems:

2nd Prize
1st Prize Branko Udovčić 3rd Prize
Mikhail Khramtsevich Nikola Predrag Gennady Kozyura

s#4 (11+13) s#3 (12+5) s#7 (10+4)

1st Prize: Mikhail Khramtsevich

1.Rfe6! (zz); 1…dxe6 2.Sf5+ A exf5 3.Rd5+ B Ke4 4.Qe3+ C Bxe3#; 1…Sc7 2.Rd5+ B Sxd5
3.Qe3+ C Sxe3 4.Sf5+ A Sxf5#; 1…gxf4 2.Qe3+ C fxe3 3.Sf5+ A Rxf5 4.Rd5+ B Rxd5#

Beautiful problem showing a full cycle of 2nd, 3rd and 4th moves of White. The matrix is amazing
with a lot of nice elements. Without any question the best problem at this tournament.

2nd Prize: Branko Udovčić & Nikola Predrag

1.Se8! (zz); 1…Sb~ 2.Qd6+ Ke4 3.Qd3+ Kxd3#; 1…Sd4! 2.b4+ Sb3 3.Qc4+ Kxc4#; 1…Ke6+
2.Qe4+ Kf7 3.Qd5+ Bxd5#; 1…Bxb7 2.Qf5+ Kc6 3.Qxd7+ Kxd7#; 1…d6 2.Qf3+ Ke6 3.Qe4+
Bxe4#; 1…Sf7 2.Qxf7+ Ke4 3.Qf5+ Kxf5#; 1…Sxg6 2.Qf5+ Se5 3.Qxe5+ Kxe5#

Seven different wQ sacrifices and mating moves. Additionally there is a black correction theme af -
ter bSb5 defenses. Excellent construction and nice flight giving keymove.

3rd Prize: Gennady Kozyura

1.d6! (zz); 1…Ba2 2.d7 Bb1 3.h8=R! Ba2 4.Rf8 Bb1 5.Rf5 Ba2 6.Rc1+ Kd2 7.Qf4+ Re3#; 1…
exd6 2.Kd5 Ba2 3.h8=S! Bb1 4.Sf7 Ba2 5.Sd8 Bb1 6.Sc6 Ba2 7.Qe4+ Rd3#

Two beautiful variations with a minor promotions on the 3rd move and two model mates with echo
double checkmate. Excellent construction.

14
 2nd Honorable Mention
1st Honorable Mention Mikhail Mishko 3rd Honorable Mention
Alberto Armeni Sergey Borodavkin Charles Ouellet

s#4 (12+5) s#6 (15+7) s#10 (12+6)

1st Honorable Mention: Alberto Armeni

1.d7? (zz) bxc5 2.Rd6 (zz) Kf5 3.Qd5+ Sxd5 4.Se3+ Sxe3#; 1…b5!, 1.Rg5? (zz) b5 2.b4 (zz) bxc4
3.Bd3+ cxd3 4.Qe2+ dxe2#; 1…bxc5!, 1.Rdh5! (zz); 1…bxc5 2.Rh6 Kf5 3.Qd5+ Sxd5 4.Se3+
Sxe3#; 1…b5 2.b4 bxc4 3.Bd3+ cxd3 4.Qe2+ dxe2#

This problem shows two variations with two corresponding tries. Nice logical play in this problem.

2nd Honorable Mention: Mikhail Mishko & Sergey Borodavkin

1.Qf6! (zz); 1…a5 2.f5 gxf5 3.Sc1! Sg6 4.Qxf5+ Kd4 5.Qf4+ Sxf4 6.Se2+ Sxe2#; 1…a6 2.Se1 a5
3.Sf3 gxf3 4.f5 gxf5 5.Qxh8 f6 6.g6 f4#

Very interesting play with two nice variations with a model mates. In one variation the bPg6 is
captured and bSh8 gives a checkmate at e2. In the other variation bSh8 is captured and bPg6
checkmates at f4. The keymove is bad because it blocks bPf7.

3rd Honorable Mention: Charles Ouellet

1.0-0-0? (2.f8=Q) e6!, 1.f8=B? (zz) f3!, 1.f8=Q! f3 2.0-0-0 f2 3.g8=B f1=~ 4.Qxf1 e6 5.Qd3 cxd3
6.Ra6 bxa6 7.Bxe6 a5 8.Ba2 a4 9.b4+ axb3 e.p. 10.Bb1 b2#
4th Honorable Mention
Valladao task in the actual play (e.p., minor promotion and cas-
Aleksandr Azhusin
tle) with a model mate. Interesting determination of moves.

4th Honorable Mention: Aleksandr Azhusin

1.d7! ~ 2.Sd6+ Ke3 3.Qe2+ Bxe2#; 1…g4 2.Qc4+! Sxc4

3.Sd6+ Sxd6#; 1…exd5 2.Qd3+! Sxd3 3.Sc5+ Sxc5#; 1…Sc1
2.Qe2+! Sxe2 3.Sxc3+ Sxc3#; 1…exf5 2.Sc5+ Ke3 3.Qe2+
Bxe2#

Three variations with three queen sacrifices and formation of

three homogeneous black batteries. s#3 (11+13)

15
 1st Commendation 2nd Commendation 3rd Commendation
Eugene Fomichev Michel Caillaud Jarosław Brzozowicz

s#7 (10+12) s#6 (11+9) s#2 (9+13)

1st Commendation: Eugene Fomichev

1.Bh6! ~ 2.Bxg5 ~ 3.Be3 ~ 4.Qxd3 ~ 5.Bxf2+ Kxf2 6.Qe3+ Kxf1 7.Qg1+ Rxg1#; 1…g4 2.Bf4 ~
3.Qf5 ~ 4.Be2+ dxe2 5.Bxg3+ Kxg3 6.Qf4+ Kxh3 7.Qh2+ Rxh2#

Non checking white battery creation for clearing way of black King to mating fields. Echo mates.
Symmetric variations.

2nd Commendation: Michel Caillaud

1.Bb7! (zz); 1…b3 2.e8=Q+ Ka7 3.Qb8+ Kxb8 4.f8=Q+ Ka7 5.Qa3+ Kb8 6.Bxg3+ Sxg3#; 1…d4
2.f8=Q+ Ka7 3.Qb8+ Kxb8 4.g8=Q+ Ka7 5.Qa2+ Kb8 6.Bxg3+ Sxg3#; 1…c2 2.g8=Q+ Ka7
3.Qb8+ Kxb8 4.h8=Q+ Ka7 5.Qa1+ Kb8 6.Bxg3+ Sxg3#; 1…Ka7 2.Bxd5+ Kb8 3.Bxg3+ Kc8
4.Rc7+ Kb8 5.Rxc3+ Ka7 6.Rb3 Sxg3#

Nice flight giving key with 3 echo variations where 3 bPs open 3 diagonal lines. These lines are
also closed by wPs which have to promote and sacrifice. Then there is a 4th variation where White
has to stop all three black pawns that are playing thematic moves.

3rd Commendation: Jarosław Brzozowicz

1…Qh5 a 2.Bxd7+ A Sxd7#; 1…Sf6 b 2.Re4+ B Sxe4#, 1.Rdxd4+?; 1…Rxa2 2.Rd6+ exd6#; 1…
Rb3!, 1.Q~? (2.Rd6+ exd6#); 1…Qh5 2.Bxd7+ Sxd7#; 1…Sf6 2.Re4+ Sxe4#; 1…Bxb4+!,
1.Qxa6? (2.Rd6+ exd6#); 1…Sf6 2.Re4+ Sxe4#; 1…Qh5! a (2.Bd7+??) A, 1.Qc2? (2.Rd6+
exd6#); 1…Qh5 2.Bxd7+ Sxd7#; 1…Sf6! b (2.Re4+??) B, 1.Qa1! (2.Rd6+ exd6#); 1…Qh5
2.Bxd7+ Sxd7#; 1…Sf6 2.Re4+ Sxe4#

White Queen has to select carefully where to play. There are several nice tries. Surprisingly only
the corner keymove works.

16
 Gligor Denkovski
(1946–2015)

“Gligor was a national master of chess composition, specialized in retros

and proof games. Together with his son Ivan, Gligor was the director of
International Solving Contest 2014 and 2015, as well as regular director
of Open Solving Championship of Serbia in recent years. Above all,
Gligor was one of the kindest and friendliest persons in our community:
modest, positive, reliable; always willing to help and join the company.”

Marjan Kovačević, MatPlus.Net