[Event "S1 Honorable Mention"]
[Site "?"]
[Date "2011.03.19"]
[Round "?"]
[White "Skripnik, Anatoly"]
[Black "Entry 47"]
[Result "1-0"]
[SetUp "1"]
[FEN "1N2r3/R3n3/2p5/2q1p3/4p3/1PkP2Q1/K1P5/5b2 w - - 0 1"]
[PlyCount "19"]
[EventDate "2011.??.??"]
[SourceDate "2005.01.24"]

{Win} 1. d4+ Kxd4 2. Rd7+ Nd5 3. Kb2 Bd3 4. Qg1+ e3 5. Qg4+ e4 6. Qg7+ Re5 7.
Rxd5+ cxd5 8. Nc6+ Qxc6 9. Qa7+ Qc5 10. c3# {Ideal midboard checkmate with six
active selfblocks. While the construction is economical, the play is very
forced and there are no surprises. Still all pieces except Pb3 moving into
their final position deserves respect. This is one of the two outstanding
studies of this section, although not outstanding from the gros of existing
studies, so in view of the overall quality of the section this high
distinction is given while under other circumstances a different rating might
have applied.} 1-0

[Event "S1 Honorable Mention"]
[Site "?"]
[Date "2011.03.19"]
[Round "?"]
[White "Campioli, Marco"]
[Black "Entry 34"]
[Result "1-0"]
[SetUp "1"]
[FEN "6R1/1R4NN/8/8/1b1K4/2B5/2pppp2/2rbkr2 w - - 0 1"]
[PlyCount "15"]
[EventDate "2011.??.??"]
[SourceDate "2005.01.24"]

{Win} 1. Ng5 $1 Rg1 $1 {main} (1... Bxc3+ $1 {main} 2. Kc4 $1 (2. Kxc3 $2 Rh1
$1 3. Nf3+ Kf1 4. Nxd2+ (4. Nf5 e1=Q 5. Ng3+ Kg2 6. Nxh1+ $2 Kxf3 $1 $19) 4...
Ke1 5. Nf3+ Kf1 6. Nf5 e1=Q+ 7. Nd2+ Qxd2+ 8. Kxd2 Rh3 $11) 2... Rh1 3. Nf3+
Kf1 4. Nf5 $1 e1=Q 5. Ng3+ Kg2 6. Nxh1+ Kxf3 $1 (6... Kxh1 {main} 7. Rh7#) 7.
Rf7+ Ke4 8. Re8+ Be5 9. Ng3+ Ke3 10. Rxe5#) 2. Nf3+ Kf1 3. Nf5 $1 Bc5+ 4. Kxc5
e1=Q 5. Nh2+ Ke2 6. Kc4 $1 f1=Q {main} (6... f1=N {main} 7. Nd4+ $1 Ke3 $1 8.
Re7+ $1 Kf4 $1 {main} (8... Kf2 $1 {main} 9. Rf7+ Bf3 10. Rxf3#) 9. Rf7+ Ke4
10. Re8#) 7. Bd4 $1 Rxg8 8. Re7# {An interesting battle between the White and
Black forces that ends with the Black king being checkmated on e2, e3, e4, f2
and h1. While the battle here has a higher tension than in entry 47, the
overall construction is worse with several Black pieces that never get an
active role. I personally like this study, although I see no justification to
place it higher than its concurrent. A honorable mention ex aequo, under the
conditions outlined at entry 47, therefore is in my opinion the fairest
measure.} 1-0

[Event "S1 1st Commendation"]
[Site "?"]
[Date "2011.03.19"]
[Round "?"]
[White "Timman, Jan"]
[Black "Entry 40"]
[Result "1-0"]
[SetUp "1"]
[FEN "6r1/p1p1p1pP/P1PpP1P1/8/2P1B3/2K3pp/3P2rq/R5bk w - - 0 1"]
[PlyCount "41"]
[EventDate "2011.??.??"]
[SourceDate "2005.01.24"]

{Gewinn} 1. hxg8=N d5 2. Bf3 d4+ 3. Kb4 $1 d3 4. Nh6 gxh6 5. g7 h5 6. g8=N h4
7. Nf6 exf6 8. e7 f5 9. e8=N f4 10. Nd6 cxd6 11. c7 d5 12. c8=N d4 13. Nb6 axb6
14. a7 b5 15. a8=B bxc4 16. Bae4 c3 17. Bxd3 c2 18. Bf1 d3 19. Kb3 (19. Kb5) (
19. Kc4) (19. Ka4) 19... c1=Q 20. Rxc1 Bd4 21. B1xg2# {The study for the first
time shows in this well known matrix four promotions to knight and one
promotion to bishop. I found instances of only knight promotions or of bishop
promotions when fewer knight promotions had happened, for example Yochanan
Afek, 3rd prize, MatPlus 2007, without any knight promotion. In spite of the
minor dual and the difficult construction I feel that the novelty is worth a
commendation. Since I like this study more than the two other commendations it
is ranked as first commendation, even though this distinction only is awarded
because of the bishop promotion.} 1-0

[Event "S1 2nd Commendation"]
[Site "?"]
[Date "2011.03.19"]
[Round "?"]
[White "Pallier, Alain"]
[Black "Entry 4"]
[Result "1/2-1/2"]
[SetUp "1"]
[FEN "k5nB/p3P1Pr/N1p2n1P/p4b1B/P7/Kp3P2/1Pp3p1/4R3 w - - 0 1"]
[PlyCount "23"]
[EventDate "2011.??.??"]
[SourceDate "2005.01.24"]

{Draw} 1. e8=Q+ Nxe8 2. Rxe8+ Kb7 3. Rb8+ Kxa6 4. f4 g1=N 5. Bf7 c1=R 6. Bxg8
Rxh6 7. Bc4+ Rxc4 8. g8=Q Rc1 9. Re8 Rxh8 10. Qxh8 Bc2 11. Re1 Rxe1 12. Qc8+
$11 {The theme of the study is the maneuver of the White rook. At least that
is what the author said. Three promotions are adding to the otherwise mediocre
play. The study is in my opinion not very good with its forced play and huge
amount of material but as a whole I think a low commendation can be given.}
1/2-1/2

[Event "S1 3rd Commendation"]
[Site "?"]
[Date "2011.03.19"]
[Round "?"]
[White "Gonzalez, Luis Miguel"]
[Black "Entry 54"]
[Result "1/2-1/2"]
[SetUp "1"]
[FEN "6K1/6NB/4PP2/2p1n1k1/2r5/1rb3P1/b7/3RN3 w - - 0 1"]
[PlyCount "16"]
[EventDate "2011.??.??"]
[SourceDate "2005.01.24"]

{Draw} 1. f7 Nxf7 2. Rd5+ Ne5 3. Nf3+ Kf6 4. e7 Rb8+ 5. e8=N+ Ke7 6. Nxe5 Rxe8+
7. Nxe8 Rg4+ 8. Ng6+ Kxe8 $11 {A nice stalemate with two pinned and one
incarcerated piece but the difficulties of the construction are clearly
visible. The play is okay but the White king and bishop as well as the two
Black bishops never move at all, taking a lot of the appeal of this study. A
commendation however surely is the correct distinction for this study, but it
must be a low one in view of the setbacks.} 1/2-1/2

[Event "S2 1st Prize"]
[Site "?"]
[Date "2011.03.19"]
[Round "?"]
[White "Campioli, Marco"]
[Black "Entry 10 (twin with 11)"]
[Result "1-0"]
[SetUp "1"]
[FEN "8/4p1p1/4Pk2/7P/8/4P1P1/8/7K b - - 0 1"]
[PlyCount "24"]
[EventDate "2011.??.??"]
[SourceDate "2005.01.24"]

{Black to move, White wins} 1... Kg5 $1 2. Kg2 Kxh5 3. Kf3 Kg5 4. Ke4 Kg4 $1 5.
Kd5 Kxg3 6. Kc6 g5 7. Kd7 g4 8. Kxe7 Kf2 $1 9. Kf8 $1 (9. Kd8 $2 g3 10. e7 g2
11. e8=Q g1=Q 12. Qf7+ Ke1 $11) 9... g3 10. e7 g2 11. e8=Q g1=Q 12. Qf7+ Kxe3
13. Qa7+ $18 {The study leaves a very nice overall impression. The first
setting shows a very nice skewer, while the second setting shows a mutual
zugzwang, sadly without a proper try, that leads to a - admittedly well known
- bodycheck situation winning the game. The good flow, as well as the higher
originality than in the second prized study, enables this work to become the
surprise winner.} 1-0

[Event "S2 1st Prize"]
[Site "?"]
[Date "2011.03.19"]
[Round "?"]
[White "Campioli, Marco"]
[Black "Entry 11 (twin with 10)"]
[Result "1-0"]
[SetUp "1"]
[FEN "8/4p1p1/4Pk2/7P/8/3P2P1/8/7K b - - 0 1"]
[PlyCount "26"]
[EventDate "2011.??.??"]
[SourceDate "2005.01.24"]

{Black to move, White wins} 1... Kg5 $1 2. Kg2 Kxh5 3. Kf3 Kg5 4. Ke4 Kf6 $1 5.
Kd5 Kf5 6. g4+ Kf6 7. g5+ Kf5 8. g6 Kxg6 9. Ke5 $1 Kh7 10. d4 g6 $1 11. d5 Kg7
12. d6 exd6+ 13. Kxd6 Kf8 14. Kd7 $18 {The study leaves a very nice overall
impression. The first setting shows a very nice skewer, while the second
setting shows a mutual zugzwang, sadly without a proper try, that leads to a -
admittedly well known - bodycheck situation winning the game. The good flow,
as well as the higher originality than in the second prized study, enables
this work to become the surprise winner.} 1-0

[Event "S2 2nd Prize"]
[Site "?"]
[Date "2011.03.19"]
[Round "?"]
[White "Akobia, Iuri"]
[Black "Entry 6"]
[Result "1/2-1/2"]
[SetUp "1"]
[FEN "8/4p2p/8/5p2/4p3/8/3P1P1P/1k1K4 w - - 0 1"]
[PlyCount "23"]
[EventDate "2011.??.??"]
[SourceDate "2005.01.24"]

{Remis} 1. d3 exd3 2. Kd2 h5 3. h4 (3. f4 $5 e6 $1 (3... h4 $2 4. Kxd3 e6 5.
Kd2 Kb2 6. h3 $1 {zz} 6... Kb3 7. Kd3 {zz} 7... Kb2 8. Kd2 $11) 4. Kxd3 Kc1 5.
h4 Kd1 $19) 3... e6 4. Kc3 $3 {zz} (4. Kxd3 $2 Kc1 {zz} 5. f4 Kd1 $19 {zz})
4... Kc1 {main} (4... e5 {main} 5. Kxd3 Kc1 6. Kc4 Kd2 7. Kd5 e4 8. Ke5 Ke2 9.
Kxf5 Kf3 10. Ke5 $11) 5. Kxd3 {zz} 5... Kd1 6. f4 $1 {zz} (6. Ke3 $2 e5 7. f4
e4 $19) 6... Kc1 7. Kc3 Kd1 8. Kd3 Ke1 9. Ke3 Kf1 10. Kf3 Kg1 11. Kg3 Kh1 12.
Kh3 $11 {I am well aware that another judge could have made this the tourney
winner. There is no flaw in this study, the zugzwang also has a try that is
much more easy to see than the solution. The move 4.Kc3 is probably the most
surprising move in the tourney. Why only the second prize then? Well, maybe
only for the same reason why the famous masterpiece by Gurgenidze and
Kalandadze of Shakhmaty v SSSR 1975 won only the second prize: Bad luck that
there was a study of equally high quality in the tourney and the judge liked
it more. At first I was not very impressed by the content, but then I never
could have forgiven myself to rate this lower than it deserves to be. In a
world where Oleg Pervakov/^s idea in 64 Shakhmatnoe Obozrenye 2000 wins a
first prize only for one surprise move - in a regular tourney - there is no
reason to give a similarly surprising move, with some not too bad foreplay,
not a prize.} 1/2-1/2

[Event "S2 3rd Prize"]
[Site "?"]
[Date "2011.03.19"]
[Round "?"]
[White "Becker, Richard"]
[Black "Entry 55"]
[Result "1/2-1/2"]
[SetUp "1"]
[FEN "K7/2PPP3/1k3PP1/6p1/7p/5P2/3p3P/8 b - - 0 1"]
[PlyCount "38"]
[EventDate "2011.??.??"]
[SourceDate "2005.01.24"]

{Black to move, White draws} 1... d1=Q 2. c8=N+ $1 Ka6 3. d8=N $1 Qxf3+ 4. Kb8
Qf4+ 5. Nd6 Qxd6+ 6. Kc8 Kb6 7. e8=N $1 Qd3 8. f7 $1 Qf5+ 9. Ne6 Qxe6+ 10. Kd8
Kc6 11. f8=N $1 Qa2 12. Ke7 Qa3+ 13. Kf7 Qa7+ 14. Kf6 Qf2+ 15. Ke7 Qc5+ 16. Kf7
Qd5+ 17. Ke7 g4 18. g7 g3 19. hxg3 hxg3 20. Nf6 $11 {It is impossible to not
give this study a prize, showing for the first time a fourfold knight
promotion in the pawn endgame. However, the partial anticipation has to be
considered, consisting of the first seven moves and most of the setting. It is
apparent that Richard Becker/^s study in ChessStar of April 2010 and my study
of Problem-Forum 2011 (composed after Becker/^s study was published but
without knowing it) were either known to the author or rediscovered. In any
case, the ranking of this study has to be lowered significantly by this.
However, in this special case the study still deserves a prize for the huge
improvement. In a completely original setting I would not have hesitated to
give the first prize to the study.} 1/2-1/2

[Event "S2 Special Prize"]
[Site "?"]
[Date "2011.03.19"]
[Round "?"]
[White "Afek, Yochanan"]
[Black "Entry 36"]
[Result "1-0"]
[SetUp "1"]
[FEN "8/7p/P6P/4p3/6p1/1P2K2p/1P4Pk/8 w - - 0 1"]
[PlyCount "33"]
[EventDate "2011.??.??"]
[SourceDate "2005.01.24"]

{Win} 1. g3 $1 Kxg3 2. a7 e4 $1 (2... h2 3. a8=B $1 Kh3 4. Kf2 g3+ 5. Kf1 $18)
3. a8=R $1 Kh2 4. Ra7 $1 Kg2 5. Kxe4 $1 g3 6. Kf4 h2 7. Ra1 Kh3 8. Kf3 g2 9.
Ra5 $1 g1=N+ 10. Kf2 Nf3 11. Ra1 $1 Ne5 $1 12. Rd1 $1 Ng4+ 13. Kf3 Nxh6 14. b4
Ng4 15. b5 Ne5+ 16. Kf4 Nc4 17. b3 $1 $18 {There is a good reason why this
study's evaluation must take up more space than the usual one page I decide
for an entry. The author wrote - and I did therefore not look for
anticipations for this study - the following lines: 1974 I published the
following study in the Polish monthly "Szachy" [Position without Pb3] The
study won initially the first prize and later was disqualified due to a non
original stalemate position!! At the time it was a blow for a young composer
to see a famous composer sending a false appeal in an attempt to improve his
position in the final award. Some famous composers are still doing it but I
care a bit less. Recently I discovered that I can improve on that youth effort
by adding just one pawn. The result: All four underpromotios are now displayed
in a King and pawns ending. Moreover the 2 underpromoted pieces continue their
accurate fight for another (record?) 8 more moves. The study might be found
suitable for both tourney sections and I leave it to Siegfried to decide. (See
below). He should therefore kindly be aware of all these details of the story.
While I have to agree with the author that - let me say it in my own words -
the judge must have been not very competent for excluding the study from the
award due to an anticipated stalemate position (a claim that indeed is correct,
by the way) there of course is no way to revise that judgment after such a
long time. However, there is a way to do justice to the work, a stunt that
however makes it unable to give out any reward, that would have been promised
for an usual placement, for its entrance into the award. The study, in full
knowledge of the above story as submitted by the author, is awarded for its
construction as a whole, and not only of the final eight moves, a special
prize. Yes, this is an unjustified distinction, but it is necessary to counter
the unjustified removal of a distinction! If the study would have to be judged
normally, it could never have received a prize again in view of the
predecessor. I hope for the author/^s understanding that I can/^t award a
monetary prize for this improvement. However, as a consolation I can offer him
a book prize. Do two injustices balance each other out? I hope so. There must
be a human view towards art and its creators, one that in rare cases like
these must outlaw the usually applied technical view. I know my judgment of
this study is wrong on the technical view, but on the human view it could not
be correct to refuse this study the justice it deserves.} 1-0

[Event "S2 1st Honorable Mention"]
[Site "?"]
[Date "2011.03.19"]
[Round "?"]
[White "Campioli, Marco"]
[Black "Entry 32"]
[Result "1/2-1/2"]
[SetUp "1"]
[FEN "2k5/pp2K3/PP6/p7/2p5/2p5/1P1P4/8 b - - 0 1"]
[PlyCount "34"]
[EventDate "2011.??.??"]
[SourceDate "2005.01.24"]

{Black to move, White draws} 1... Kb8 $1 2. bxa7+ Kxa7 3. dxc3 $1 b5 $1 4. Kd6
a4 $1 5. Kc5 Kxa6 6. Kb4 Kb6 7. Ka3 Kc5 8. Ka2 Kd5 $1 9. Ka3 $1 Ke4 10. Kb4 Kd3
11. Kxb5 a3 12. bxa3 Kxc3 13. a4 Kd4 {main} (13... Kb3 {main} 14. a5 c3 15. a6
c2 16. a7 c1=Q 17. a8=Q Qc4+ 18. Kb6 $11) 14. a5 c3 15. a6 c2 16. a7 c1=Q 17.
a8=Q Qb1+ 18. Ka6 $11 {The very nice flow makes this study a good one, as well
as the interesting ending where White has to avoid getting into a skewer,
although that reply is very easy to find. The White king maneuver from e7 to
a2 to a6 or b6 makes a good impression as well.} 1/2-1/2

[Event "S2 2nd Honorable Mention"]
[Site "?"]
[Date "2011.03.19"]
[Round "?"]
[White "Pallier, Alain"]
[Black "Entry 5"]
[Result "1/2-1/2"]
[SetUp "1"]
[FEN "8/K4p2/3p1P2/pP6/P2P4/P7/2p1k3/8 w - - 0 1"]
[PlyCount "27"]
[EventDate "2011.??.??"]
[SourceDate "2005.01.24"]

{Draw} 1. b6 c1=Q 2. b7 Qc7 3. d5 (3. Ka8 Qc6 4. Ka7 Qxa4 5. b8=Q Qxd4+ 6. Ka6
Qd3+ 7. Ka7 Qxa3 $19) 3... Qc5+ 4. Ka6 Qc7 5. Ka7 Kd3 6. Ka8 Kd4 7. b8=Q Qxb8+
8. Kxb8 Kxd5 9. Kc7 Ke5 10. Kb6 Kd4 11. Kc6 (11. Kc7) 11... Ke5 12. Kb6 Kd4 13.
Kc6 (13. Kc7) 13... Ke5 14. Kb6 $11 {A nice symbiosis of two positional draws,
with an interesting and highly paradox move 3.d5.} 1/2-1/2

[Event "S2 3rd Honorable Mention"]
[Site "?"]
[Date "2011.03.19"]
[Round "?"]
[White "Campioli, Marco"]
[Black "Entry 30"]
[Result "1-0"]
[SetUp "1"]
[FEN "8/1ppp4/8/1p1P4/3P3k/KPp4P/6P1/8 w - - 0 1"]
[PlyCount "29"]
[EventDate "2011.??.??"]
[SourceDate "2005.01.24"]

{Win} 1. b4 $1 (1. Ka2 $2 b4 $11) (1. g4 $2 b4+ $1 $11) 1... Kg3 2. Kb3 Kxg2 3.
h4 $1 Kf3 4. h5 Ke4 5. Kxc3 $1 (5. h6 $2 Kd3 6. h7 c2 $11) 5... Kf5 6. Kd3 Kg5
7. Ke4 d6 $1 (7... Kxh5 $2 8. Kf5 $1 c6 9. d6 b6 10. Kf6 $18) 8. h6 $1 Kxh6 9.
Kf5 Kh5 10. Ke6 Kg4 11. Kd7 Kf4 12. Kxc7 Ke4 13. Kxd6 Kxd4 14. Ke6 Ke4 15. d6
$18 {A nice play on the famous Reti theme, with excellent flow.} 1-0

[Event "S2 Commendation"]
[Site "?"]
[Date "2011.03.19"]
[Round "?"]
[White "Campioli, Marco"]
[Black "Entry 31"]
[Result "1-0"]
[SetUp "1"]
[FEN "8/p7/P2p4/1pp5/4P3/2PKp1p1/1kP2PP1/8 w - - 0 1"]
[PlyCount "25"]
[EventDate "2011.??.??"]
[SourceDate "2005.01.24"]

{Win} 1. f4 $1 c4+ $1 2. Kxe3 Kxc2 (2... Kxc3 3. e5 d5 4. e6 d4+ 5. Ke4 d3 6.
cxd3 cxd3 7. e7 d2 8. e8=Q d1=Q 9. Qxb5 Qc2+ 10. Kf3 Qf2+ 11. Kg4 Qxg2 12. f5
$18) 3. e5 $1 dxe5 4. fxe5 b4 5. e6 (5. cxb4 $2 c3 6. e6 Kb3 7. e7 c2 $11) 5...
b3 6. e7 b2 7. e8=B $1 b1=Q 8. Bg6+ Kb2 9. Bxb1 Kxb1 10. Kd4 Kc2 11. Kxc4 Kd2
12. Kd5 $1 Kxc3 13. Kc6 $18 {Another study with nice flow. Of course the
underpromotion is well known, but the interesting overall play deserves a
distinction.} 1-0

[Event "S3 1st Honorable Mention"]
[Site "?"]
[Date "2011.03.19"]
[Round "?"]
[White "Poisson, Christian"]
[Black "Entry 52a"]
[Result "1-0"]
[Annotator "Mate in 11"]
[SetUp "1"]
[FEN "8/8/1pKP1k2/8/8/8/8/8 w - - 0 1"]
[PlyCount "21"]
[EventDate "2011.??.??"]
[SourceDate "2005.01.24"]

{Mate in 11} 1. d7 Ke7 2. Kc7 Kf6 3. d8=Q+ Ke5 4. Kxb6 Kf4 5. Kc5 Kf5 6. Kd4
Kf4 7. Qf6+ Kg3 8. Ke3 Kg4 9. Qg6+ Kh3 10. Kf3 Kh2 11. Qg2# {A nice twinning
leading to an, although not difficult to create, echo checkmate. The problem
is the few ones showing Black play.} 1-0

[Event "S3 1st Honorable Mention"]
[Site "?"]
[Date "2011.03.19"]
[Round "?"]
[White "Poisson, Christian"]
[Black "Entry 52b"]
[Result "1-0"]
[Annotator "Mate in 11"]
[SetUp "1"]
[FEN "8/8/1pK1Pk2/8/8/8/8/8 w - - 0 1"]
[PlyCount "21"]
[EventDate "2011.??.??"]
[SourceDate "2005.01.24"]

{Mate in 11} 1. Kd6 b5 2. e7 Kf7 3. Kd7 Kg6 4. e8=Q+ Kf5 5. Qe3 b4 6. Kd6 b3 7.
Qf3+ Kg5 8. Ke6 b2 9. Qg3+ Kh6 10. Kf6 Kh7 11. Qg7# {A nice twinning leading
to an, although not difficult to create, echo checkmate. The problem is the
few ones showing Black play.} 1-0

[Event "S3 2nd Honorable Mention"]
[Site "?"]
[Date "2011.03.19"]
[Round "?"]
[White "Marjanovic, Dragoslav"]
[Black "Entry 23"]
[Result "1-0"]
[Annotator "Mate in 4"]
[SetUp "1"]
[FEN "8/1P6/KPkPP3/2p5/2P1PP2/8/8/8 w - - 0 1"]
[PlyCount "7"]
[EventDate "2011.??.??"]
[SourceDate "2005.01.24"]

{Mate in 4} 1. e7 Kxd6 (1... Kd7 2. b8=Q Ke6 3. Qf8 Kxd6 4. e8=Q#) 2. e8=R Kc6
(2... Kd7 3. b8=Q Kc6 4. Qc7#) 3. b8=N+ Kd6 4. e5# {The author skillfully
avoided all variations with duals and managed to find a key that gives a
flight. There are four different promotions, and while the two promotions into
minor pieces of course are the (+)highlight[+] of the problem, the beautiful
Hinterstellung 3.Qf8 also adds value, although it sadly takes the flights on
the f-file.} 1-0

[Event "S3 3rd Honorable Mention"]
[Site "?"]
[Date "2011.03.19"]
[Round "?"]
[White "Marjanovic, Dragoslav"]
[Black "Entry 14"]
[Result "1-0"]
[Annotator "Mate in 4"]
[SetUp "1"]
[FEN "4K3/1P4p1/1P1kPP2/3p2p1/3P2P1/8/8/8 w - - 0 1"]
[PlyCount "7"]
[EventDate "2011.??.??"]
[SourceDate "2005.01.24"]

{Matt in 4 Zuegen} 1. b8=N $1 gxf6 (1... Kxe6 2. fxg7 Kf6 (2... Kd6 3. g8=R) 3.
g8=R Ke6 4. Rg6#) (1... g6 2. f7 Kxe6 3. f8=R Kd6 4. Rf6#) 2. Kf7 f5 3. e7 fxg4
4. e8=N# {Rich play with four different promotions, but the key is poor
insofar as it takes a flight.} 1-0

[Event "S3 4th Honorable Mention"]
[Site "?"]
[Date "2011.03.19"]
[Round "?"]
[White "Marjanovic, Dragoslav"]
[Black "Entry 15"]
[Result "1-0"]
[Annotator "Mate in 3"]
[SetUp "1"]
[FEN "8/1P3PP1/3P4/5k2/3P4/4P3/4K3/8 w - - 0 1"]
[PlyCount "5"]
[EventDate "2011.??.??"]
[SourceDate "2005.01.24"]

{Mate in 3} 1. g8=Q Ke4 (1... Ke6 2. f8=Q+ Kd7 3. b8=N#) 2. f8=N Kf5 3. Qg6# {
A very "short" problem, showing the skillful design of two promotions to queen
and knight each. The key is a bit better than in the third honorable mention,
while the overall play makes less impression.} 1-0

[Event "S3 1st Commendation"]
[Site "?"]
[Date "2011.03.19"]
[Round "?"]
[White "Marjanovic, Dragoslav"]
[Black "Entry 22"]
[Result "1-0"]
[Annotator "Mate in 3"]
[SetUp "1"]
[FEN "8/1PPp1P2/2pPp2P/2p1Pkp1/2K3p1/3P2P1/8/8 w - - 0 1"]
[PlyCount "5"]
[EventDate "2011.??.??"]
[SourceDate "2005.01.24"]

{Mate in 3} 1. b8=Q (1. f8=Q+ $2 Kxe5 $1) (1. f8=R+ $2 Kg6 $1) 1... Kxe5 (1...
Kg6 2. f8=Q Kh5 (2... Kh7 3. Qg7#) 3. Qbe8#) 2. f8=R Kxd6 3. c8=N# {Four differ
ent promotions in an interesting setting, sadly two times into queen.} 1-0

[Event "S3 2nd Commendation"]
[Site "?"]
[Date "2011.03.19"]
[Round "?"]
[White "Poisson, Christian"]
[Black "Entry 50"]
[Result "1-0"]
[Annotator "Mate in 7"]
[SetUp "1"]
[FEN "7k/8/3P4/4P3/8/8/8/3K4 w - - 0 1"]
[PlyCount "13"]
[EventDate "2011.??.??"]
[SourceDate "2005.01.24"]

{Mate in 7} 1. d7 Kg7 2. d8=Q Kg6 3. Qf6+ Kh7 (3... Kh5 4. Qg7 Kh4 5. Ke2 Kh3
6. Kf3 Kh2 7. Qg2#) 4. e6 Kg8 5. e7 Kh7 6. e8=N Kg8 7. Qg7# {A very economical
problem with an appealing starting position that however lacks depth, although
the move 3.Qf6+ is nice, postponing the walk of the other pawn.} 1-0

[Event "S3 3rd Commendation"]
[Site "?"]
[Date "2011.03.19"]
[Round "?"]
[White "Lind, Ingemar"]
[Black "Entry 41"]
[Result "1-0"]
[Annotator "Mate in 4"]
[SetUp "1"]
[FEN "8/P2p4/1P1P1P2/Pk3P2/3K4/8/8/8 w - - 0 1"]
[PlyCount "7"]
[EventDate "2011.??.??"]
[SourceDate "2005.01.24"]

{Mate in 4} 1. b7 $1 (1. a8=Q $2 Kb4 2. Qd5 Ka3) 1... Kc6 (1... Ka4 2. b8=Q Ka3
3. Kc3 Ka2 (3... Ka4 4. Qb4#) 4. Qb2#) 2. b8=R Kxd6 3. a8=N Kc6 4. Rb6# {
Three promotions, of which the both underpromotions are the stars. However,
the play very much lacks substance.} 1-0

[Event "S3 4th Commendation"]
[Site "?"]
[Date "2011.03.19"]
[Round "?"]
[White "Marjanovic, Dragoslav"]
[Black "Entry 21"]
[Result "1-0"]
[Annotator "Mate in 5"]
[SetUp "1"]
[FEN "8/1P2P1p1/3PPk2/2pP2pP/2P1ppP1/1K2p3/p1p5/8 w - - 0 1"]
[PlyCount "9"]
[EventDate "2011.??.??"]
[SourceDate "2005.01.24"]

{Mate in 5} 1. b8=N c1=N+ 2. Kc2 a1=N+ 3. Kb1 g6 (3... Ke5 4. Nc6+ Kf6 (4...
Kxd6 5. e8=N#) 5. e8=N#) 4. e8=N+ Ke5 5. Nc6# {The problem theme can/^t
console for the Black promotions being just a nice but unconnected addition.
With the nice key, the problem still is worth to be commended.} 1-0

[Event "S3 5th Commendation"]
[Site "?"]
[Date "2011.03.19"]
[Round "?"]
[White "Gottstein, Claudius"]
[Black "Entry 12"]
[Result "1-0"]
[Annotator "Mate in 17"]
[SetUp "1"]
[FEN "1k6/1Pp2p1p/2Pp3P/3PpP2/1p2p3/1P2P3/8/4K3 w - - 0 1"]
[PlyCount "33"]
[EventDate "2011.??.??"]
[SourceDate "2005.01.24"]

{Mate in 17} 1. f6 Ka7 2. Kf2 Kb8 3. Kg3 Ka7 4. Kg4 Kb8 5. Kf5 Ka7 6. Kxe4 Kb8
7. Kd3 Ka7 8. Kc4 Kb8 9. Kxb4 Ka7 10. Ka5 Kb8 11. b4 Ka7 12. b5 e4 (12... Kb8
13. b6 e4 14. Kb5 $18) 13. b6+ Kb8 (13... cxb6+ 14. Kb5 Kb8 15. Ka6 $18) 14.
Kb5 cxb6 15. Ka6 b5 (15... Kc7 16. Ka7 b5 17. b8=Q#) 16. Kb6 b4 17. c7# {
The problem has a nice length, but as it is often with problems of this length,
the Black counterplay is minimal. The move 14.Kb5 is a nice small point, but
overall the play reminds more of a seriesmover or one of those problems with a
far triangulation that were researched a hundred years ago, for example by
Otto Blathy.} 1-0

