EG OCTOBER, 1965

One of the first things that strikes the endgame study enthusiast is the fact that there have been

no great British composers. Certainly the British study has had its inspired moments, such as the

famous study by Joseph which our first Tourney commemorates, but never has there been a plethora

of fine composers, or even one who has really stood out from the rest. On the other hand, British

problems have always been amongst the best, which to my mind indicates that chess composition is

in our blood; furthermore, there is evidence that there is no lack of future problem talent at the

present time.

The reason for this lies, I am sure, in the lack of encouragement for composers and general

interest among the chess public. It is to be hoped that the Chess Endgame Study Circle and its

organ EG will provide the necessary stimulus for the budding composer by (a) keeping him in touch

with recent developments (b) providing material for the improvement of his techniques (c) giving him

the chance to display his best work prominently and (d) by holding regular meetings to stimulate

discussion and allow for lectures by leading composers. More generally, the mere existence of

E G should increase interest among chessplayers; by holding tourneys, by acting as a source book,

by encouraging discussion, it should cause chess columnists and others to devote more time and space

to studies. There is a place for the purely aesthetic in the average chess player's world, provided

that it is intelligently presented.

However, as the USSR has shown, chess composition will only flourish with a large peripheral

interest from the general chess public. Chess.composers should not regard themselves as an upper

crust apart from everybody else; nor does it really serve their interests if they are so regarded by the

average chessplayer. Intelligent progaganda will be a great step forward. The emergence of a new

magazine in E G should be a signal for an improvement in the status of our noble art, and

consequently for a new upsurge in British study composition. Naturally, miracles do not happen

overnight; but the path is clear and the initiative to be taken. Unfortunately, E G will not be

effective until it has a strong membership; so we appeal to all those interested in the future of the

chess study art to support us. P.S.V.

17
37

DRAW DRAW DRAW

DRAW WIN WIN

WIN WIN DRAW

WIN WIN DRAW

18
 N o . 3 7 ; H . M . Lommer. 1st Pr. Tidskrift fflr Schack, 1963. T . f . S . 6/64. 1 Re7 Bd5/i
2Rd7 Be6 3Re7 Bc4 4Re4/ii Ba2/iii 5Re2/iv Bb3 6Re4/v Ba2 7Re2 Bg8/vi 8Re8 Bf7 9Re7 Bh5
I0Re5 W 11Re7 Bd5 12Rd7 Bc4 13Rd4 Bf7 14Rd7 Bh5 15Rd5 Be2/vii 16Rd2 Bc4 17Rd4 Bf7 18Rd7
Bb3 19Rd4/viii Positional =. i) 1 . . Bg6 2Rg7 Rfl 3Rxg6+ any 4 Rg4 =. ii) 4f7? Rfi 5Re4 Rxf7
6Rxc4 b3. iii) 4 . . Rcl 5f7. iv) 5Ka7? Bf7 6Re7 b3, or* 5Kc7(8)? Bf7 6Re7 Bc4 7Re4 Rcl. v)
6Re3? Kf2. v i ) 7 . . R a 1 8Re4 b3 9f7 b2 10f8Q b l Q 11Qb4 =. vii) 1 5 . . Bf3 16Rd3 Rfl 17Rb3=.
viii) Not 19f7? Bxf7 20Rxf7 b3 21Rf5/ix Rcl 22 Rb5 Rc3 23Kb7 Kf2 24Kb6 Ke2 25Ka5 Kd2 26Ka4
Kc2 27Ka3 R c 6 / 7 / 8 Black wins, ix) 21 Rf4 Ra,d,e,f1 (not e l ) and Black wins. The point lies
in the position (not new) - W : Ka3 / Rb4; B1: Kc2,Rc3,P"Ei: White to play loses (Rb8,Rc7); Black
to play only draws ( . . Rc8;Rc4+). This consideration determines Black's choice on move 2 1 . '

N o . 3 8 : B.V. Badaj. 2nd Pr. Tidskrift ffirSchack,1963.T.f.S. 6/64. 1Sh4/f Rxh6 2Kg3/iif
e3/iv 3Rxf3 Rxh4 4Kxh4 Sf5+ 5Kh3 e2 6Rd3+ K e 6 / 5 / 7 7Rd2 e i Q 8Re2+ Qxe2 =. ?) !Sf7+? Rxf7
2Sh4/ii Ke5 3Kg3 Sf5+ / or 1 Rd2+? Ke6 2Rd4 f2 3Rxe4+ Kd5 4Re5+ Kd4, or !Sg4? Rxg6 2Kg3 Sh5+
3Kh4 Sf4 4Sh2 Rg2, or 1 Kg3? Sh5+ 2Kg4 Rxg6+ 3Kxh5 Rg2 4Rf1 Ke5 5Sg4+ Kf4 6Sf6 f2 7Sd5+ Kf3
8Ral e3. ii) 2Kg3 Ke6 3Sf4+ Ke5 4Sg6+ (4Sh3 Sf5+ 5Kg4 Rg7+ 6Sg5 Rxg5) Kd4 5Sf4 Sf5+ 6Kg4
Se3+ 7Kg3 Rg7+ 8Kh3 Ke5 9Sh5 Rh7 10Kh4 Sf5+ 11 Kg4 Rxh5 12Kxh5 e3. iii) 2Rd2+? Ke5 3Kg3
Sf5+ 4Sxf5 Rg6+. iv) 2 . . Rxh4 3Kxh4 e3 4Kg3,e2 5Rxe2= / or 2..Sh5+ 3Kg4 Sf6+ 4Kg3=.

N o . 3 9 : R. Forsberg. 3rd Pr. Tidskrift f6r Schack 1963. T . f . S . 6 / 6 4 . 1 Rg6+/l Kf3/ii 2Rf6+
Ke2 3Rxf1 Rxe7/iii 4Rf2+/iv Kei 5Rxh2 Rc7 6Rhl+ Ke2 7Rh2+/v Kfi 8Rh1+ Kg2 9Rai/vi d4/vii lOKbl
d3 11Bxa3 a 5 / v i i i 12Kb2 b4 13Bxb4 ab 14Kb3=. i) 1 Rh6? Re4, or 1Bxe3? Sxe3+ 2Kc3 h i Q , or
1 Rxfi ? Re2+. ii) 1 . . Kf2? 2Rh6, or 1 . . Kh3 2Bxe3. iii) 3 . . Kxfi 4Bxe3 hi Q 5e8Q Qg2+ 6Bd2
Qe4+ 7Qxe4 de, White gives up his B for the e-pawn and draws by not capturing the a3 pawn, iv)
4Rh1? Rh7 5Bd6d4. v) 7Ral ? d4. vi) 9Rgl+? Kf3 lORai d4 H K d 3 Rxc5 12Rfl+ Kg4 13Kxd4 Rc2
14Ral Kf3. vii) 9..Rxc5 10Kbl=, or 9 . . a 5 lOKbl b4 11Bb6 Rc4 12Bxa5 and 13Bxb4=. viii)
1 1 . .d2 12Kb2 Rd7 13Rdl Kf3 14Bb4 Ke2 15Rxd2+ Rxd2+ 16Bxd2 Kxd2 17a4 b4 18a5=.

N o . 4 0 : B.V. Badaj. 4th Pr. Tidskrift for Schack / 1963. T . f . S . 6 / 6 4 . lh7+Kxh7/i 2Bb7/ii
Sg6+ 3Kf6 Rxc2 4Be4 Rf2+ 5Kg5 Kg7 6Bxg6 Rg2+7Kh5=. i) 1 . . Kg7 2h8Q+ Kxh8 3Bg4 Sg6+ 4Kf6=.
ii) 2Bg4? Sg6+ 3Kf6 Rxc2, or 2Ba6? Sg6+ 3Kf7 Rxc2 4Bd3 Rf2+.

N o . 4 1 : Dr. A . Wotava. 5th Pr. Tidskrift f6r Schack, 1963. T . f . S . 6 / 6 4 . lRxa4 Kxa4/i
2Rc5 Kb3/ii 3Rb5+ Kc(a)4 4Rxf5 Kb3 5Rb5+ Kc4 6Rxh5 Kb3 7Rh4/iii Kxb2/iv 8Rxh3 g2 9Rg3 Kb3/v
lOKei wins, i) 1 . . Kb6 2Rb4+ Ka7 3Rc7+ Ka6 4R(c)b7 f2 5R4b6+Ka5 6b4+ Ka4 7Kc2. ii)
2 . .else 3Kc2 and 4b3+. iii) 7Rxh3? g2. iv) 7. .else 8Rb4+ and 9Kc2. v) 9 . .f2 10Rxg2.

N o . 4 2 : H.AIoni. 1st H . M . Tidskrift f6r Schack, 1963. T . f . S . 6 / 6 4 . 1 Bf5+/i Sd3+ 2Bxd3+

Kxd3 3Se5+ Kxd4 4Bxc1/ii b2 5Bxb2+ Rxb2 6 0 - 0 - 0 + Kc3 7Rd3 mate, i) lBxb4? Sd3+, or 1Sf2?
Rxf2 2Kxf2 Sd3+, or 1Se3+? Kd3 2Bxb4 Re2+ 3Kfl Kxe3 4Rxcl Sd3. ii) 4Rxcl ? b2 5Sf3+ Kd3
6Sxd2 bcQ+ 7Bxcl Kc2=.

N o . 4 3 : J . Fritz. 2nd Place Theme 1 , International Friendship Match 1962, from Shakhmaty v
SSSR 1/65. 1 Rb7+/i Kxb7 2Sd6+ Kc6 3Sxe8 f 3 / i i 4Bdl Kxc5 5Kc2 f2 6Sxf2 Bd4 7Se4+ Kd5
8Bf3 Sa3+ 9Kb3 Sb5 10Sc3++ Kc5 1 lSa4 mate, i) . .Qb5+ and . . Q c 6 are both threats, ii) so that
if 4Bxf3+? Kxc5 5Kc2 Sd2=.

N o . 4 4 : E. Pogosjants. 8th Place, Theme 1 , International Friendship Match 1962, from

Shakhmaty v SSSR 1/65. 1c7 Bxf5+/i 2Kg7/ii Q a 8 / i i i 3c8S+ Kxe6 4d5+ Qxd5/iv 5f8S mate,
i) 1 . . Bh5+ 2Kg7 Qa8 3c8S+ Qxc8 4Bxc8 Bxf7 5de wins, ii) 2Bxf5? Qc6+ or 2Kxf5? Qc2+. iii)
Threat . . Qg2+. iv) 4 . . Kxd5 5Sb6+ wins.

N o . 4 5 : G . M . Kasparyan. l/2nd Pr. New Statesman 2 6 / 2 / 6 5 . 1h7 Rh4/i 2Rc5 Ra4+ 3Kb2
Rb4+ 4Ka2/ii Kg7, 5Rh5 Kh8 6Ka3 Rbl 7Ka2 Rb4 8Ka3 Ra4+ 9Kb3 Be8 10Re5 Bd7 11 Rd5 Bc6 12Rc5
Rb4+ 13Ka3 Bb5 14Rh5=. i) 1 . .Re8 2Rc5. ii) 4Ka3? is premature, after 4 . . Kg7 5Rh5 Kh8 White
is in Zugzwang.
 No.46: V.A.Bron. l/2nd Pr. New Statesman 26/2/65. 1 Bc2+ Kd4/i 2Kxd2/ii Bb4+/m
3Kcl Sxg6/iv 4Sc6+ Ke3 5Sxb4/v Sf4 6Sf5+ Kxe2 7Be4 Sf2 8Sg3+ Kel (3) 9Sc2mate. i) 1 . . Kd5
2Sh5 Sxg6 3Bxg6 Bb4 4Sf4+ K any 5Sc4,c6 or d3+ wins, or 1 . . Ke5 2Sc4+ Kf6 3Sh5+ Kg5 4g7, or
1 . . Kf4 2Sh5+. ii) 2Sb3+? Kc3 3Sxd2 Sf2+ 4Kel Kxc2=, or 2Sf5+? Kc3=. iii) 2. .Sxg6 3Sc6+
Kc5 4Bxg6 Kxc6 5Bc4+. iv) 3.. Kc3 4Sc6 Sg3 (4.. Ba3+ 5Kbl Sg3 6Sf5) 5Se6 Sxe2+ 6Kdl Sxg6
7Bxg6 Sgl (7. .Sg3 8Sxb4 Kxb4 9Kel Kc4 10Kf2 Kd5 1 lSf4+ wins) 8Sxb4 Kxb4 9Be4 Kc4(3)
lOKel Sh3 HBg2 Sgl 12Kfl wins, v) 5Bxg6? Bc3 6Sg any Kxe2=.

No.47: A. P. Kuznetsov. Shakhmaty v SSSR 12/64. lBd3 Bg8/i 2Be4 Bh7 3Se7+/ii Ka7
4Bd3/iii Kb7 5Kf2 Kb8 6Ke3 Ka7 7Kd4 h4/iv 8Ke3 Kb7 9Kf3 Ka7 10Kg4 Kb8 11 Kg5 h3 12Kh6
wins, i) 1 . . Kb7 2Se7 as main line, ii) 3Kf2? Kb7 4Se7+ Kc7 5Sd5+ Kd6 6Sf6 - this is the
manoeuvre that stops .. Kc7 or b6 in the main line - 6.. Ke5=. iii) 4Kf2? Ka6 - the move that
Bd3 prevents - 5Bd3+ Ka5 6Ke3 Ka4 7Kd4 h4 8Ke3 Kb3 9Kf3 Kc3=. iv) So that if 8Ke5? h3 9Kf6
h2 10Be4 g5=, but now wK can approach h6 via g4 - f4 and h4 always being taboo through . ,g5+.

No.48: F.S. Bondarenko and A.P. Kuznetsov. 4th Pr. New Statesman 26/2/65. !Ba6+
Kg2 2Qe8/i a2+ 3Kal Rhl 4Qxe4+ Kh2 5Bfl Bxd5 6Qxd5 cd 7g4 Bxf2 stalemate. i)2Qe7? Bxd5 wins

No sooner had the studies for EG No 2 been selected, the diagrams written by hand, and
all the solutions also copied by hand, this labour being accomplished for EG No 2, as for E G

No 1 , by Hugh Blandford, than a note was received from the USSR to the effect that the Vecherny

Kiev Award, which we largely quote from, was not final,somestudies being suspect. It was too

late to change the studies in EG No 2, so readers w i l l , we hope, understand why our good

resolution, never to publish a study which is known to be suspect, has to be broken so soon. At

the date this is being typed (11 .ix.65) it is not known which studies are suspect. This is probably

a good place also to apologise for the misprint in 33, and for the following busts or queries:-

3: No solution. Black wins: lSg7+ Kh6 2Sxe6 ed. Or, alternatively, White in note

(v) after 3Sg4+ Kh5 4de Qd6+ 5Kf5 Qxe7 wins with 6Sf4+. So, rather than "no solution"

perhaps we should say "3 solutions, all with different results". Our condolences to Mike Bent.

*4: This is suspect on account of 5. .al Q.

19: A rather serious dual by 5Kf2 h2 6Se3 Bh3 7Sf5 and 8Sg3 mate. (Walter Veitch.)

25: Walter Veitch throws doubt on this study by suggesting that note (ii) is in fact only a draw.

For instance: 4 . . h3 5Bf3+ Kb8 6Kd5 h2 7Kc6 Kc8 8Bg2 Kd8 9Kb7 Kd7 lOBhl Kd6 HBc6

(HKc8 Ke5or 11 b5 Kc5) 11..f3 12Bxf3 c5 13b5 c4=.

33: bS on f2 should be bB.

 It will be obvious to readers that the solutions in E G No 2, as well as the diagrams and text,

present a very different appearance when compared with No 1 . The problem of space has largely

been solved, perhaps at the expense of some clarity. To obtain ten solutions to a page would be

impossible with the No 1 format.

The suggestion has been made that we use Forsyth notation in order to save space. This we

shall never do. Forsyth notation is liable to all kinds of error, is very troublesome to check, and

is, in our opinion, an insult to the composer whose position is "Forsythed". To put a composition

into Forsyth is like putting wine into a tin - it is not possible to see the contents- and the visual

effect is as important to a study as it is to a wine. However, the founder would like to know of

all suggestions that readers may have about the solution presentation. We have already adopted

the suggestion of several reader that "White" and'Black" be omitted from the diagrams. We should

very much like to adopt the further suggestion that the composer's name appear with the diagram.

We should indeed have printed No 1 this way, if it had not been more expensive. The point is

that our printers, the British Chess Magazine, set up the diagram pages from hand-written diagrams

supplied by us - actually by Hugh Blandford. Now the BCM have ready-made type-slugs for "Win"

or "Draw", so there is no time lost in type-setting these, but "F.S. Bondarenko and A. P. Kuznetsov"

would take time to set up, and the BCM charge is naturally mainly proportional to the time taken.

If we reach 150 subscribers, then this will be not only possible, but done, provided that the

diagram pages do not thereby become over-crowded. As the diagrams are now, readers will

probably agree that there is a certain neatness about having a single item of information set

at each of the 4 corners.

Readers will notice that the type-face for EG No. 2 differs from that for E G No. 1. We

are experimenting. No. 1 was actual type-size. No.2 is photo-reduced.

Tourney Announcement: "Houston Chronicle". Any number of entries, in duplicate, on

diagrams, with full solutions and analyses, bearing composer's name and address IN CAPITAL

LETTERS, to:- George H. Smith, 15602 Shanghai, Houston, Texas 77040, U.S.A. 1st Prize, $50.

Other prizes. Judges: Robert Brieger, William Bills, Eric Bone. Technical adviser to the judges:

Harold Lommer. Closing date: 15.1.66.

DRAW WIN WIN

DRAW WIN DRAW

55

WIN DRAW DRAW

DRAW DRAW WIN

22
 No.49: F.S. Bondarenko and A.P. Kuznetsov. 1st H.M. New Statesman 5/3/65. lSgl +
Kg2 2Sf6 Rg7 3Sh3 Kxh3 45e8 Rh7 5Sf6 Rh6 6Sg8 Rh5 7Sf6 Rh6 8Sg8 Rh7 9Sf6 Rg7 10Se8 Rg8 11 Sf6
Rf8 12Sh7 Rd8 13Kc7 Ra8 14Kb7 Ra5 15Kb6 Rd5 16Kc6 Rd8 17Kc7 fcg8 18Sf6=.

No.50: CM.Bent. 2nd H.M. New Statesman 5/3/65. Ig7 Sxg7/i 2Kxf8 Se6+ 3Ke7 Sd4
4Sb5+ Sxb5 5Sd5+ Kc6 6Sb4+ Kc5 7Sa6+ Kc6/ii 8Bf3 mate, i) 1. .Sg6 2Kf7 wins or 1. .Sd7
2Sg4 or 1..fe 2gfQ or 1..f3 2Bxf3 wins, ii) 7.. Kd4 8Bxb5 f3 9Sc7 f2 10Se6+ Ke3 11 Sg5 Kd2
12Se4+Kel 13Sg3 wins.

No.51: J. J. van den Ende. 3rd H.M. New Statesman 5/3/65. lSd3++ Ka3/i 2Sbl+ Ka4
3Sc3+ Ka5/ii 4Ra7 Rxa7 5Bd8+ Ka6/iii 6Sc5 mate, i) 1 . . Kc2 2Sb4+ Kxd2 3Re2+ any 4Sxa6 wins,
ii) 3.. Ka3 4Bd4 b2 5Re2 wins, iii) 5.. Rc7 6Bxc7+ Ka6 7Sc5+ Ka7 8Sb5 mate.

No.52: E. Janosi. 4th H.M. New Statesman 5/3/65. lSb4/i Sh2/ii 2a6 Sf3+ 3Ke2/iiiSc3+
4Kf2/iv Sb5/v 5Sd5+ Kg4 6Se3+ Kf4 7Sd5+ Ke5 8Sb6 Bdl 9Sc4+ Kf4 10Se3 Ba4 HSd5+=. i)
lSe7? Sh2 2 a6 Sf3+ 3Ke2 Sc3+ 4Kd3 Sb5 5 Sd5+ Kf5 6 Sb6 Bdl 7Kc4 Sc7 8a7 Se5+ 9Kc5 Bf3
10Kd6 Sa8 wins, or lSd4? Sfe3 2a6 Sd5 3 Se6+ Ke3 4Sc5 Bc2 wins, ii) 1. .Sfe3 2a6 Sc4 3a7
Sb6 4Sd5+ wins, iii) 3Kfl ? Bb5+ 4Kg2 Se3+ 5Kf2 Sg4+ 6Kg2 Sel+ 7Kh3 Bfl+ 8Kh4 Sf6 wins,
iv) 4Kd3? Sb5 5Kc4 Sa7 6Kc5 Sc8 7Sd5+ Kf5 8Sb6 Sxb6 9Kxb6 Se5 10a7 Bc6 wins, v) 4. .Se4+
5Kg2=.
No.53: G . M . Kasparyan. 5th H.M. New Statesman 5/3/65, as amended later by the
composer (bP now h5, originally g3). lSb3/i Kc4 2Sa5+ Kb5 3Sb7 Kc6 4Sd8+ Kd7 5Sf7 Be3+/ii
6Kf!/iii Ke6 7Ke2 Bel 8Sd8+ Kd7 9Sb7 Kc6 10Sa5+ Kb5 1 lSb3 wins, i) lSb6? Kc3 2Sa4+
Kb4 3Sb2 Bg7=. ii) Holding this + in reserve by . .Bel or . .Bf4 achieves nothing, 5. .Bg7 6Kfl
Kc6 7Sd8+ Kd7 8Sc7 wins, iii) 6Kh2? Ke7 7Se5 Bf4+=. If W exchanges his S's for bB then he
wins K+P ending, or if both WS's escape to K-side they will buttress the diagonds of WP from
attack on the diagonals leading to g5 and g7. W has no difficulty in taking the hP and h5-h4
is never a serious threat.
No:54: G . M . Kasparyan. 1st Pr(. Vecherny Kiev 1965. Ie6 Rbl+ 2Ke2 Be8 3Ra3/i Bb5+
4Kd2 Bc6 5Rg3 Rb2+ 6Kel/ii Rg2 7Rb3 Rgl+/iii 8Ke2 R 9 2 + °Kel/iv Rb2 10Rg3=. i) 3Rg8? Rb6
wins, or 3d7? Bh5+ 4Kd2 Rdl+ 5Kc2 Rd5 6Rg8+ Ke7 wins, ii) 6Kcl ? Rg2 7Rb3 Rgl+ 9Kxdl Ba4
10Kc2 Be5wins. iii) 7.. Kc8 8d7+ Kc7 9Rb3=. iv) 9Kfl ? Rb2 10Rg3 Bb5+ 11 Kgl Rbl+12Kg2
Bfl wins.

No.55; T.B. Gorgiey, 2/3rd Pr. Vecherny Kiev 1965. lQel+ Kxel 2Kxgl Bd2 3Sd3+/i
ed 4Scl Bxcl 5Bc7 g4 6Bd8 g3 7Bc7 Kd2 8Ba5 mate, i) 3Sc4? c l Q 4Bc7 Bb3, or 3Bc7? clS .

No.56: V.A. Korolkov. 2/3rd Pr. Vecherny Kiev 1965. 1 Rd3/i Sf7/ii 2Rd7/iii Bxe4
3Rxf7 Bg6+ 4Kh6 Bxf7 5g6 Kg8_6gh+ Kh8=. i) lgf? Bxe4 2Rg3 Bg6+ 3Kg4 Kg8 wins, or 1 Rb3?
Kg7 2gf+Kxf6 wins, ii) 1. .Sc6 2Rd7 Ba6 3Rd6 Be2+4Kh6 Se7 5gf Sg8+6Kg5. iii) 2gf?
Bxe4 3Rd7 Bg6+ 4Kh4 h5 5Re7 e5 6Ra7 Kh7 7Re7 Kh6 8Ra7 e4 9Re7 Sg5 10Kg3 Bf7 11 Kf4 Kg6 wins,
or 2Rd4? Kg7 3gf+ Kxf6 4Kg4 e5 5Rb4 Sd6 6Rb6 Ke6 7 any Bxe4 wins.

No: 57: G . N . Zakhodyakin. 1 H.M. Vecherny Kiev 1965. 1SC3+ Kal 2Sxa4 Rc8 3Ke4
Rc4 4Sc5 Sxc5 5Kd5 Rc3 6Se2 Re3 7Sd4 Rc3 8Se2 Rc2 9Sd4 Rcl 10Se2 Rel HSd4=.

No.58: T.B. Gorgiev and A.S. Kakovin. 2 H.M. Vecherny Kiev 1965. 1 R4d3+ Kc4
2Rc2+ Kb5 3Rb2+ Kc5 4Rc2+ Kb6 5Rb2+ Ka7 6Ra2+ Kb8 7Rxa8+ Kxa8 8Kc7 Qh2+ 9Kb6 Qg3/i
10Rd4/ii Qf4 HRd3 Qe5 12Ra3+ Kb8 13Ra8+ Kxa8=. i) 9..f5? 10Rd8+. ii) 10Rdl,d5? Qe5 wins.

No.59: G . N . Zakhodyakin. 3 H.M. Vecherny Kiev 1965. !Bc6 be 2Rd6+ Kh5 3Rd5+ cd
4Rg8 hlQ+ 5Kd2 Qh2+ 6Kdl=.
No.60: G. Amiryan. 4. H.M. Vecherny Kiev 1965. 1 Kbl/i hg/ii 2Rcl Sxd3 3Rgl/iii
Sel 4e5 Bxe5 5Rel Bd4 6Bfl wins, i) lKa2? hg 2Rcl Sxd3 3Rgl Scl+ 4Ka3 Sxe2 5Rxg2 Sd4
6Rf2 Be7=, if 4Kbl Sxe2 5Rxg2 Sc3+ 6Kc2 Sxe4=. ii) 1. .Sxd3 2Ra3 Kb8 3 gh wins, iii) 3Bxd3? Bd4=
 C O L L E C T I N G THE BEST

What books should the study collector have if he wishes to combine quality, quantity and

constructive comment in the fewest possible tomes? Below is a personal selection of titles that

provides at least a basis for answering the question. Most collectors w i l l desire many more works than

those mentioned here, but this list is not intended for them. It is intended for the enthusiastic begin-

ner-collector, who faces three problems: what old books to look for, how to find them, and how to

keep his collection up to date. This article attacks the first; the best answer to the second is to

get on the distribution lists of as many second-hand (chess-) book dealers as possible; and the two

answers to the third are — "Watch the book reviews in the chess magazines", and "Become a

member of the Chess Endgame Study C i r c l e " .

The major sources f a l l , not very t i d i l y , into 3 classes — anthologies, single-composer collections,

and "others". They are presented below in chronological order within each group.
No of
Date Title Author(s) or Composers Studies Comments

1910 1,000 Endgames(2vols.) C.E.C. Tattersall 1000 Dominated by Horwitz,

Kling, Rinck and
Troitzky.
1938 1234 Modern Chess Endings M.A.Sutherland and 1258 Classic
H . M . Lommer
1946 111 Suomalaista Lopputehtavaa A.Dunder and A.Hinds 111 Finnish composers.
1949- De Schaakstudie and Bronnen A.Rueb ca.1000 Much more than an
1955 van de Schaakstudie (1C slim vols.) anthology. A work of
historical, comparative,
and classifying pretensions.
In Dutch.
1954 Sachova Studie J.Fritz 474 See below.
1955 Sovjetski Shakhmatny Etyud Several 650 Full notes

1956 Vsjesoyuznye Pervenstva po R.M.Kofman 222 Problems also.

Shakhmatny Kompozitse
1960 Selected Endings N.T.Whitaker and 325 I l l are pawns-only. No
G.E.Hartleb Bron, Birnov, Gurvich,
Kasparyan,etc.. .Contains
a remarkably complete list
of works on the endgame.
1961 FIDE Album 1956-1958 FIDE Jury selections 76 Spoilt by absence of notes.
Problems also.
1962 Positsionnaya Nichya G.M. Kasparyan 214 4 types of non-stalemate
draw.
1963 2500 Finales (2 vols.) G.M. Kasparyan 2500 Mate, stalemate and
stalemate avoidance only.
Classified. Some poor
studies included, for
comparison purposes.
1964 FIDE Album 1945-1955 FIDE Jury selections 361 Again, notes are absent
Problems as well.

No of
Date Title Author(s) or Composers Studies Comments

V . and M. Platov 153

1922 Endspielstudien J.Sehwers 87
1937 55 Schackstudier E.Holm 55
1937 360 Chess Studies A . A . Troitzky 360 Contains the famous
supplement on 2S v P.
1938 80 Eindspelstudien C.J.de Feijter 80
1938 lOOEndspiele A.S.Selesniev 100
1950 1414 Fins de Partie H.Rinck 1440 Much that is trivial, mi
that is great. Superb notes.
1951 Kniha Sachovych Studii L.Prokes 621 Scores of perfect examples
of the short-solution,
natural-position genre.
1954 Sachova Studie J.Fritz 200 The same work as in the
anthology section.
1954 Shakhmatnye Tvorchestvo N . D.Grigoriev 128 Also analyses, theoretical
N . D.Grigoriev articles, games. The
pawn maestro.
1954 Curiosites Tactiques des Finales V.Halberstadt 77
1957 Mis Mejores Finales J.Mugnos 81 Also an anthology of 73
Argentinian studies.
1958 Collection (Russian) V.A.Koroljkov *108
1959 Collection (Russian) V.A.Chekhover 70 Also game endings.
1959 Collection (Russian) T.B.Gorgiev 156
1959 Collection (Russian) G.M.Kasparyan 150 Also games.
1959 54 Studi Scacchistici E.Paoli 54
1959 Collection (Russian) A. A . Troitzky 176 Posthumous, by Koroljkov
etal.
1960 Finales en Ajedrez R.Reti 53 Spanish edition of the
German original of 1931(7).
1961 Collection (Russian) A.Gurvich 70 Also 120 pages of critical
anthology.
1964 Collection (Russian) A.O.Herbstman 117 Also critical essays.

1939 Eindspelen en Problemen Th.C.L.Kok 186 Also problems.

1948 De Eindspelstudie J.H.Marwitz and 115
C.J.de Feijter
1952- Lehr- und Handbuch der A. Chiron ca.1700 Indispensable Superb notes.
1958 Endspiele (3 vols.) Theoretical endgame
treatise, life's work of the
author, studies handpicked
and analysed. Be sure
latest edition is obtained,
of each volume.
1964 Meisterwerke der Endspielkunst A.Gurvich and 118
W.Speckmann
1965 Das 1 x 1 des Endspiels H.Staudte and 104
M.Milescu
Why EG ?

Because the founder insisted.

E G implies endgame.

E G suggests also "e.g. "which is the abbreviation of the Latin for "for example". We intend to

give the very best examples of endgame study composition.

E G is short.

E G pronounced "eejee" is unlikely to be confused with any other publication.

E G is not readily forgotten.

E G is very nearly "egg". Analogies between the egg and the endgame study are not hard to find:

painful birth, fragility, susceptibility to cooking and busting, organic nature, beauty,

interest of both form and content, economy (no waste space), unknown worth until cracked

open, complexity combined with simplicity, importance of soundness, a three-fold analogy

between shell-plus-white-plus-yolk on the one hand and introduction-plus-development-

plus-de"nouement on the other, and puzzle-value (the egg of Columbus and the which-came-

first-the-chicken-or-the-egg poser, for example).

Any U.K. Chess Endgame Study Circle member may receive, on sending to the founder

half-a-crown in 2^d or 3d stamps together with a large stamped addressed envelope, a complete

up-to-date list of names and addresses of:-

i) Complimentary E G recipients

ii) Subscribing members

iii) Special arrangement members

iv) Other U.K. potential members who have been sent E G No 1 but who have

have not (yet) joined.

Because of the postage stamp problem it is not yet possible to extend this service to members

outside the U.K.

 Exchanges between E G and the following periodicals have already been formally

arranged:-

Ajedrez Espanol Spain

American Chess Quarterly U.S.A.

Ceskoslovensky Sach Czechoslovakia

Correspondence Chess England

Finnish Bulletins Finland

Problemas Spain

Problemnoter Denmark

Schakend-Nederland Holland

Die Schwa I be W. Germany

Shahmat Israel

Sinfonie Scacchistiche Italy

Tidskrift f6r Schack Sweden

It is with great regret that we learn of the demise during the last three years of Problem

(Jugoslavia) and Suomen Sakki (Finland), and of the probable impending demise of the FIDE

Revue. These are all blows to the endgame study fraternity.

EG has a twin in Italy. A letter from Dr. E. Paoli imparts that Sinfonie Scacchistiche,

a quarterly like E G , first appeared in July 1965, the same month as E G . It has a study

column run by Dr. Paoli.

What is the distinction between a "formal" and an "informal" tourney? The word "informal"

applies to a competition for all studies published in a given magazine during a particular calendar

year. "Tidskrift f6Y Schack" and "Shakhmaty v SSSR" run regular informal tourneys. In a formal

tourney all entries are sent to the judge or judges, and it is only the final judgment that is ever

published. Both kinds usually have prizes. Formal tourneys are harder work for the judges because

they have to do their own demolition work and because the standard of entries tends to be higher.

The magazine solvers do most of the demolition in informal tourneys.

27
WIN DRAW DRAW

WIN WIN BLACK TO PLAY,

WHITE WINS

WIN WIN DRAW

WIN DRAW WIN

28
 N o . 6 1 : V.KIyukin. 5 H . M . Vecherny Kiev 1965. l g 7 / i a l Q 2 g h B Qxh8 3Sg7 Ke7 4 K a 8 / i i i
Kxf8 5Se6 Ke7 6b8Q Qxh7 7Qc7+ Ke8 8Qd8+wins. i) lSe6+? Kd7+ 2Ka7 a l Q + wins, or lSg7?
Qxg7 2Se6+ Kd7 3Sxg7 al Q 4h8Q Qe5+ 5Ka7 Qo5+=. ii) 2ghQ? Qe5+=. iii) 4Sge6? Kd6 5Kc8
Qc3+ 6Kd8 Kf6 7Kc8 Qc3+ 8Kb8 Qh8 9Ka7 0 0 1 = , or 4Ka7? Kxf8 5Se6+ Ke7 6b8Q Qxh7 7Qc7+
Ke8 8Qxh7=.

N o . 6 2 : A . G . Kopnin. 6 H . M . Vecherny Kiev 1965. lSe3 Rgl 2e7 Rg8 3Kh7/i Re8
4Kg6/ii Bb4 5Sf5+ Ke5 6Kf7=. i) 3Sf5+? Kd5 4Sg7 Bc3 5e8S Be5 6Kg6 Rf8 7Kh7 Kc6 8Kg6
Kd7 9Kh7 Ke7 10Kg6 Rfl U K any Kf7 wins, ii) 4Sf5+? Kd5 5Kg6 Kc6 6Kf7 Kd7 wins.

N o . 63: E.L. Pogosjants. 1 Com. Vecherny Kiev 1965. 1 Rf8+ Kg7 2Rf7+ Kxf7 3Sg5+ Kg7
4Sxh7 Sdf4 5Sg5 Kg6 6Sh3 Sxh3 7f4 Sf6+ 8Kf3 Kf5 9Kg3 Sgl 10Kf2 Sh3 11 Kg3=.

N o . 6 4 : J . Fritz. 1st Pr. Ceskoslovensky Sach 1964. Ie6+ Ke7/i 2ed Rc7+/ii 3Kd2/iii
Rxd7/iv 4Kdl Rd8 5Ke2 Rd7 6Kf3 Rd8 7Ke4 Rd7 8Kf5 wins, i) To protect the bB on d6 after 2ed.
i i ) 2 . . R x d 7 3 K d l . i i i ) 3 K d l ? Rxd7 4Kd2 Bf44= iv) White creates a Zugzwang position, skilfully
preventing freeing checks.

N o . 6 5 : T.B. Gorgiev. 2nd Pr. Ceskoslovensky Sach 1964. !Bf3 Bg3+ 2Ke4 e2 3Bxe2
Rxe2+ 4Kf3 Rg2 5Rdl+ Rgl 6Rd2 Bc7 7Rh2+ Bxh2 8Sf2 mate.

N o . 6 6 : A . Hildebrand. 1 H . M . Schach-Echo 1964. 1 . . B e l + 2 K g 6 Rgl+/i 3Kh5 Rhl +

4Kg4 Rh4+ 5Kf3 Rh3+ 7Kg2 Rg3+ 7Kh2 wins, i) 2 . .Bxa5 3 cb Rgl+ 4Kh5 Rhl+ 5Kg4 Rgl +
6Kh3 Rhl+ 7Kg2 Rgl+ 8Kh2 wins.

N o . 6 7 : A . Ericsson. 2 H . M . Schach-Echo 1964. Ib7 Kc7/i 2Sd7 Kxb7 3Sxf8 Bxf3 4f7
Bd(h)5 5Se(g)6 wins, i) 1 . . Bf3 2Sc6.

N o . 6 8 : H. Kallstrom. 3 H . M . Schach-Echo 1964. I c 7 f2 2Ke2 Bf3+ 3Kxf2 Bg4 4f5

Kb7 5f6 Be6 6c8Q+ Kxc8 7Bf5 Kd7 8f7 Ke7 9Bxe6 wins.

N o . 6 9 : F.S. Bondarenko and A . P . Kuznetsov. Tidskrift for Schack 2 / 1 9 6 5 . lSd5Bxd5

2Se3+ Kf6 3Bg8/i Bxg8/ii 4Sxg4+ Kf7 5Bxe5 e3 6Bc7 e 2 / i i i 7Bxa5 Kf8 8Bb4+=. i) 3Bxd5? g3
4Bxg3 g4=. ii) 3. .g3 4Sd5+ Kf5 5Be6 mate, iii) 6. .a4 7Bd8 e2 8Se5+ Kf8 9Be7 mate.

N o . 7 0 : P. Heuacker. Schach-Echo 1964. lSg8+/i Sh4/ii 2Qc3+ Sf3 3Qxf3+ Kh4 4 Q f 2 + / m

Kg5 5Qe3+/iv Kg6 6Qh6+ Kf7 7Qh7+ Ke6 8Qh3+ wins, i) lSf5+? Kg4 2Qh4+ Kf3=. ii) 1 . . Kg3
2Qh2+ Kf3 3Qf2+ Ke(g)4 4Sf6+. iii) 4Sf6? Qg3-f=. iv) 5Qd2+? Kf5=.

N o . 7 1 : A . Wotava. Deutsche Schachzeitung 1/1965. I f 3 / i Bxf3 2Bc6 Bxc6 3Rxc6 d2

4Se3 Bxe3 5Rd6 c5 6Kxb6 c4+ 7Kc6 c3 8Rd8+ Ka7 9Rd7 •=. i) 1 Bc6? Bxc6 2Rxc6 d2 3Se3 Bxe3
4Rg6 Kc8 5Rgl Bxf2 6Rdl Be3, or 1 Rc6? d2 2Se3 Bxe3 3Bg4 Bf4 4Bdl Bh3 wins.

N o . 72: P. Heudcker. Deutsche Schachzeitung 4/1965. lSd7+ Kc8 2Sb6+ Kb8 3Qf8+
Ka7 4Sc8+ Ka8/i 5Sd6+ Qb8 6Qf6 e 3 / i i 7Sb5 b6 8Sd6 e2 9 Q a l + Qa7 10Qh8+/iii Qb8 H Q h l + Ka7
12Qal mate, i) 4 . . Ka6 5 Q f l + or 4 . . Kb8 5Sd6+. ii) 6. .b5 7Qe6 e(g)3 8Qd5+ Ka7 9Qc5+
Ka"6 10Qc6+ Qb6 H Q c 8 + Ka7 12Sb5+. iii) 10Qhl+? Kb8 H Q h 8 + Kc7 12Sb5+ Kd7 13Qd4+ Ke8
14Qh8+ Kc7 15Qh5+ Kc8.

Tourney Announcement: "Suomen Tehtavaniekat". In honour of Visa Kivi's 60th birthday

(on 2 7 . v i . 6 5 ) , who is the judge. Entries to:- Hannu Harkola, Pajalahdentie 6 A , Lauttasaari,

Finland. Total prize-money, FMk 100. Closing date: 3 1 . x i i . 6 5 .

 FIDE Problem Commission

The Problem Commission of the Federation Internationale des Echecs met in Reading (Berkshire,

England) from i.ix to v i i i . i x . As far as can be ascertained no study composers were present.

Although the proceedings of the Problem Commission and its various sub-committees are not made

generally public there is nevertheless no strong effort to keep them confidential. In fact we are sure

that the members of the Commission would be only too glad if more people were aware of its activity.

The decisions of the Problem Commission are in fact technically only recommendations to the

senior player-oriented body, but it should come as no surprise to learn that the recommendations seem

always to have been accepted in the past. The items we know about which concern the study arena

are in fact only two. V.A. Korolkov is put forward for the title of Master of Composition; and two

more Albums are likely to be collated, the first from the 7th century ('.) to 1912 and the second from

1913 to 1944. This will cover the whole of the history of chess composition and leave future Albums

to deal with compositions in a 3-year cycle. The Album projects are of course wholly to be praised,

but as far as the endgame studies are concerned we hope with E G to give both a wider selection and

fuller solutions than appear practicable in the FIDE Albums.

The founder was delighted to attend the tea and open session that was held on Sunday v. ix. It

was a most amicable gathering ~.id profitable in more ways than one — five Chess Endgame Study

Circle subscriptions were collected. The study fraternity will be perhaps surprised to be told that

C.P. King-Farlow, Comins Mansfield and Jan Mortensen are members - - B.P. Barnes and

P.S. Valois were of course in at the beginning.

We hope to cover the controversial question of organisations, associations and such-like, insofar

as they impinge on the study enthusiast, in our next Editorial.

As an addition to the list of magazines being exchanged with E G we have pleasure in naming

SPRINGAREN . This is a Swedish publication that appears to be a quarterly. It is duplicated,

but with diagrams, and is edited by that enthusiastic composer, A. Hildebrand.

 As a late news item we give the result of the 1962 American Chess Quarterly Tourney. Although

the issue containing the Award is dated "January-February-March, 1965" it appeared very late and

in fact reached us only at the very end of v i i i . 6 5 .

1st = G.M. Kasparyan

1st = J . H . Marwitz
3rd = V . A . Korolkov
4th = G . M . Kasparyan
4th = A . J . Roycroft

Special prize for the best American entry: R. Brieger.

An astonishing coincidence about all the above 6 studies is that the length of the main line

solution is in every case 13 or 14 moves. In no other respects do any of the studies resemble one

another. They will all appear in E G No 3.

Note on Studies 33 and 34.

International Friendship Match. This is a team composing event to be organised every 3 years. A

team represents a country. A FIDE composers' congress in Moscow in 1961 determined the basic

details, such as classes of composition - 2ers, 3ers, 4+ers, studies, self- and help-mates. Three

themes would be set in each class. The study themes and judges were, for the 1962 results announced

this year:-

1. Mate, with at least two black self-blocks. H . M . Lommer (England).

2. Twin positions (or more than two). Only a single discriminant allowed, though the stipulation

may vary. R. Voia (Rumania).

3. A white ambush (battery) created by a quiet move of the masked piece (R or B). Win or draw.

The late A . Gurvitch (USSR).

(Information obtained from Shakhmaty v SSSR (9/62 and 11/62).

Tourney Announcement

Springaren tourney for studies (and problems) in which the diagram shows at least one necessarily

promoted piece. 3 to 5 book prizes shared among the best problems and studies. To: A . Hildebrand,

Postfack, Uppsala 1 , Sweden. Closing date.- l.xii.65.

31
The Chess Endgame Study Circle

Annual Subscription due each July: £ 1 , to cover E G 1-4, 5-8 etc. Please arrange for your

Bank to forward your subscription to:

A . J . Roycroft (Chess Account), Westminster Bank Ltd., 21 Lombard St., London EC3.

(United States and Canadian subscribers may pay by dollar cheque for $3.00 direct to the Founder.)

** Subscriptions are payable to the Founder, or his Bank Chess Account, only. Acknowledgments

of subscriptions and donations should accompany the next issue after payment. **

The founder thanks all readers who have sent in their subscriptions, those who have also sent

donations, and those who have sent letters of encouragement. Please continue to send in all three,

as appropriate. Comments and criticisms are also welcome.

Up to 2nd September only 48 paying subscriptions have been received. This is not promising.

Please canvass actively, in your own interest.

New subscribers, donations, changes of address, ideas; special subscription arrangements:

A . J . Roycroft, 121 Colin Crescent, London NW 9 (Founder)

Study Editor:

H.F. Blandford, 12 Clovelly Drive, Hillside, Southport, Lancashire

General Editor:

P.S. Valois, 14 High Oaks Road, Welwyn Garden City, Herts

To magazine and study editors: Please arrange to send the complimentary copy of your magazine,

marked " E G EXCHANGE \ to:

C M . Bent, Black Latches, Inkpen Common, Newbury, Berkshire

Next Meeting of the Chess Endgame Study Circle

Friday 14th January 1966, 6.30 p.m. at St. Bride's Institute, London EC4.

Talk: Symmetry - C M . Bent