Compositions at 100-cell board by Andrew Fomin

[FOMIN]

Ju. Golikov,( Tver, Russia)

Снимок.JPG1 (5).JPG (46.75 KiB) Viewed 5884 times

[FOMIN]

A.Fomin(Moscow)
https://fmjd.org/dias2/save/16910458152.png

16910458152.png (5.58 KiB) Viewed 5845 times

[FOMIN]

https://minietiud.forum2x2.ru/t1020-topic#47104
Поиски - находки
Post by AnF Mon. Nov. of 30, 2015 4:58 am

14488576266.png (5.33 KiB) Viewed 5070 times

[FOMIN]

There was known before (message by Yu. Golikov)
D. v. d. Berg (" De problemist", No. 3 ,June ,1961 )

16999362314.png (5.78 KiB) Viewed 4303 times

[FOMIN]

........A.Fomin.........
10,41,4,34,34 etc. x

17009704049.png (6.82 KiB) Viewed 4124 times

[FOMIN]

A.Fomin
https://fmjd.org/dias2/save/16352162213.png
15-10, 42 , 5 , 14-10, 8,17,27,37 x

attach.png (7.54 KiB) Viewed 2423 times

[FOMIN]

................A.Fomin..............

Screenshot_20240706-151704.jpg (274.36 KiB) Viewed 1999 times

[FOMIN]

XIV Moscow championship on drafts composition,' 1987 "Minuatures-100 "

IMG_20241012_020548_473.jpg (704.43 KiB) Viewed 264 times

A. Moiseev , No. 1 (0 points)

23,27,29 x
Chief Judge A. Fedoruk wrote: “The theme of the miniature is certainly not new, there are ideological predecessors: M. Van Roy (Netherlands)
"Het Damspel ", 1969 (Information provided by Sergei Yushkevich).
https://fmjd.org/dias2/save/17282355326.png
1.31 2.33 3.43 4.22 5.24 x
A close ideological predecessor is A. Kachyushka: "Dambrete" magazine, No. 8, 1985
https://fmjd.org/dias2/save/17282364259.png
22,27 x
A. Fedoruk wrote : " According to the rules of the checkers composition, A. Kachyushka retains the right to improve it for 5 years. Therefore, despite the most successful, perhaps, design of the theme in No. 1, this position remains without an score" .
*********************************************
No. 2 A. Moiseev (5, 0 points)

20, 9 , 33 , 3 (40)A, 13,27,27 x A(24), 49(33), 11,40,21(38), 49x
A. Fedoruk wrote :"The basis of the content is the finale with two motives for winning. The combination game, alas, does not make a favorable impression, the initial arrangement of the checkers is not natural, the last move of black is not logical. Satisfactory composition. - 5 points."
****************************************
A.Moiseev , No. 3 (6 points)

29,1 (35-40), 35 (39), 20,34, 24 x
Interesting performance. There is a "highlite " in the finale.( 6 points )
No. 4 A. Moiseev (2,5 points)

21,12,44,14(23), 3(46), 5x
The scheme of the combination game is known. Here is one example: A. Polman (Netherlands) :J.A.Pennungs ("4650 problemen" ,No.2604))
[img(100px,100px)]https://fmjd.org/dias2/save/17282687726.png[/img]
19,14 etc. x
No. 5 A. Moiseev (6, 5 points)

1.22-17;2.2.28 , 4(46), 31 x
A. Fedoruk wrote : "The concept of the game is not new, but it is well implemented - victims of the majority rule occur three times.
Here is one of the predecessors: V. Matus: 20th All-Soviet Union contest, 1986, No. 82;"
https://fmjd.org/dias2/save/17282706703.png
1.43-38 , 3,21 x
No. 6 A. Moiseev (5, 5 points)

7,27,39(43), 47-42, 33,39 x
"The merit of the composition is a rare final motive, a double sacrifice by the majority rule. The initial position of the checkers, unfortunately, is far from practical. ( 5.5 points.) ", -A. Fedoruk
************************************************************
************************************************************
S.Perepelkin
No. 7 : S.Perepelkin (0 points)

1.14 2.2 3.24 4.38 5.36 x
A. Fedoruk writes: "Marriage. Simple side solution: 28, 18-13, 4.38x

No. 8 : S.Perepelkin (7 points)

31,5,31,35 x
" A beautiful dynamic solution, however the theme of the composition does not shine with novelty. The rating from the 20th All- Soviet Union contest of 7 points is confirmes"-A.Fedoruk .
No. 9 : S.Perepelkin (7 ,5 points)

7, 44 , 1(16) , 24 , 37 , 13 x
"Original mechanism with the destruction of two black kings and the sacrifice of the white one. the main drawback is the passive role of the black checker 3. The author should have explaine the purpose of this checker in the solution . The composition score is 7.5 points",-A.Fedoruk.
No. 10 : S.Perepelkin (7 points)

19,5(49), 19(3), 17,17 x
"Miniature with not a simple plot and good design technique. The judge of the section A. Lentochkin mistakenly believed that the author missed a possibility of equalizing the forces of the parties - move the white checker 26 to the cell 26 and adding the black one 26 . In this case, the position was not solved after the 2nd black move. 27 =", -A. Fedoruk.
No.11 : S.Perepelkin (6 points)

32-27 (28), 23(32), 2(41) b, 13,36(47 A), 41(20), 10,14 x b (43), 32,23 x
A (46), 41 (42), 5, 20 (30), 24,35 x
"The introduction and counterplay are reminiscent of the famous miniatures by D. Vuurboom (1970);and Ju. Marquarde from the 5th USSR Championship(1984). Thanks to other final motifs, the play in No. 11 acquired a completely new sound. The hidden maneuvers of the king 4.13 and 5.36 perfectly disguise the solution. (score: 6 points)", - A. Fedoruk .
No.12 : S.Perepelkin (7 points)

44,50 , 12, 3 (17 A), 20(47), 24,24x A(47), 24 , 24 x
"The well-known idea of ​​the king's sacrifice is strengthened by the destruction of two black kings and an unexpected introductionary move.. It's a pity that the legality of the initial arrangement of the checkers must be proven - this is the main drawback of the miniature. Very good miniature - 7 points"-A.Fedoruk .
There was known before : J. Viergever ("Het Damspel ', No. 1 , 1963 )
https://fmjd.org/dias2/save/17282822238.png
23,3 (36), 20 x
*******************************
No. 13-18 Ju. Golikov (5 positions -0 points, 1 position -1 point)

No. 19 A. Fomin (0 points)

12,1,32 , 42,37 , 37 x
"There is side solution in the endgame after 3.27 4.47 5.36 etc. x ", -A. Fedoruk
No. 20 A. Fomin (6,5 points)

Screenshot_20241007-102435.jpg (268.91 KiB) Viewed 267 times

A. Fedoruk wrote : "According to the main idea (the imaginary victim of the king on the cell 8 has predecessors: AJ. Beemer, M. Ben and V. Matus: "Checkers-4-1981"). In No. 20 the majority rule is successfully used, but the introduction's move is obvious, and the last move of black is clearly illogical. The author's analysis of the continuation 3.39 is controversial and does not exhaust all the possibilities of white in the game for achievement of the win. The rating of the composition is -6, 5 points".
Ps: The original of author's miniature No. 20 is currently lost. The miniature has been restored thanks to its characteristic by A. Fedoruk .
No. 21 A. Fomin (8 points)

1.29-23 (36) 2.25-20 3.24:05 (34-39) A 4.41 5.42 x A(28), 37,46 x
"Compared to the version from the 20th All-Soviet Union contest
(https://fmjd.org/dias2/save/17282894451.png 1.25-20 x), the breakthrough in the kings has become less spectacular, but the initial arrangement of the checkers and the finale have been improved. The role of checker 22 has become more active than that of checker 2 in the first redaction. In general, No. 21 already looks excellent compoisition . -8 points", - A.Fedoruk.
No. 22 A. Fomin (8 points)

1.19-13 2.25:05 (16-21) 3.26:07 (34-39) 4.27-22 5.5-28 6.44:42 x
"The combination play on the 4th and 5th moves is a successful find by the author. Black's contriplay is short and natural, so it does not spoil the overall impression. The composition is rated as excellent - 8 points", - A. Fedoruk.
No. 23 A. Fomin (7 points)

1.12-8 2.3 3(49) 4.8 5.20-14 6.15:24 x
"An interesting combination game, however, the unnatural arrangement of the checkers reduces the composition's score ( 7 points) ", - A. Fedoruk
No. 24 A. Fomin (8,5 points)

1.26-21 2.21:01 (18, 8,38 , 38:49) 6.1-18 (49:27) 7.25-43 (49) 8.28:27 9.16:27 xr
"Excellent mark from the 20th All-Soviet Union contest is confirmed', - A. Fedoruk.
**********************
E. Zubov No.No.25 ÷ 30
No. 25 E.Zubov (7,5 points)

1.42 2.34 3.1 4.41 5.21 :45 x
There was published later :~07.1987 ,newspaper " Sports Moscow"
https://fmjd.org/dias2/save/17284974418.png
1.11 etc. x "Beautiful game, rare final blow of white. The main shortcomings of the miniatures in the arrangement of checkers, and the far advanced checkers 7 and 11, the passive role of checker 35. The composition score is 7,5 points" -A. Fedoruk.

No. 26 E. Zubov (8, 5 points)

1.1.7 2.01 34-29 3.47 ! 4.47-42 27 5.37 6.37 x
"Three subtleties in the solution and a rare finale put this miniature among the best in the section. If the introduction to No. 26 is prose, then the game from the third move is beautiful poetry. Excellent work - 8.5 points", -A. Fedoruk.

No. 27 E. Zubov (7, 5 points):"Shashki ",No.8 ,1987

1.7 2.4 3.8 5.22:44 x
"The miniature is executed in the good old style: all three strikes of the majority's choice are technically impeccable, the decisive sacrifice of the king is beautiful. . But the checker 9 on the pre-king cell is a considerable handicap for white. A very good composition - 7.5 points",-A.Fedoruk ..

No. 28 E. Zubov (8, 0 points)
A.Fedoruk wrote : A score of judge A. Lentochkin (7, 0) ?

1.07 2.01 24-30.3.4:22 5.1:23 6.05 x
"The counterplay scheme resembles the work of S. Yushkevich from the 5th USSR Championship. With the approach to the final motif, there is another predecessor - the miniature of B. Morkus, Vilnius Championship, 1987.
S. Yushkevitch : " 64 chess review ", No. 6,1983
https://fmjd.org/dias2/save/17285231291.png
31,2 (10, 44), 22(49), 9 x
B. Morkus : https://fmjd.org/dias2/save/17285234697.png
11(8, 7,37), 10(48), 20(46), 5 x
However, the culmination of the combinational play with No. 28 is brighter than that of B. Morkus. Despite the presence of predecessors, No. 28 deserves an "excellent" rating.

No. 29 E. Zubov (6,5 points)",-A.Fedoruk .

1.09! 2.11 3.42:4.37 41 5.37 6.37 x
"The intermediate strike 11:42 well disguises the unusual transfer of the black king to the cell 26. At the same time, in the initial position variations are possible by moving the checker 33 to thecell 29/24 and even moving two white checkers 33 to the cell 39 and 14 to the cell 9. The presence of such variations is a drawback of the composition. The score is 6.5 points",-A.Fedoruk .
No..30 E. Zubov (7, 0 points)

1. 04 38-39 2.04:30 !! 48 3.39 4.17 5.27 6.37 x
"The introduction, of course, cannot be called successful, but the content more than compensates for this shortcoming. White's actions on moves 2-4 are inventive. A very good miniature - 7 points", - A. Fedoruk

No. 31 Ju. Chesnokov (Karaganda region ) , ( score is 1, 0 points)

1.44 2.22 3.2 4.2:8! 41-36 A 5.46 -41 6.8-24 7.15:24 x A (41-28), 15-10, 8-26 x
"The author's idea works even without the black checker 24: it is needed only for masking the decision.
"there are very close predecessors: O. Baeke from the book 1001 miniatures by G. Gortmans, 1938;: No. 759 and No. 771;No.759 white:21, 27,37,38,46,48,50 blacks :8, 10,11 , 16,18,20,40, decision :44,22,2 etc. No. 771:21, 27,37,38,46,48,50 blacks: 8,11,14,16,18,23,40 ".
In comparison to its predecessors, the endgame has been modified, but the initial arrangement of the checkers has been worsened. Only with great difficulty can No. 31 be considered a new composition.", -A. Fedoruk

No. 32 Ju. Chesnokov ( 4, 0 points)

1.39-34 2.30-34 3.40-34 4.35:4 (32-37)5.4:1 37:48 6.1-34 48:30 7.25:34 x
"Only the initial checker placement is good, the breakthrough to cell "4" is trivial, the counterplay of black is also. Mediocre.
The plot of the composition is not new. It can be seen, for example, in the miniature by J. Pennings (Netherlands), published in the magazine Het Damspel, 1969 (indicated by consultant S. Yushkevich): white: 15, 23,27,30,38,39,42 black: 4,10,11,23,28,34 decision ; 21,16, 9,4(37), 34,25 xIn No. 32 .The theme is designed in its own way, however, the presence of predecessors lowers the score ( 4 points). ", -A. Fedoruk.
JA. Pennungs :"Het Damspel ", No. 5, 1960 .
https://fmjd.org/dias2/save/17285283042.png
31,16,3 , 4 (37), 34,25 x
S. Yushkevitch: "Crimean week", May, of 8, 1975
https://fmjd.org/dias2/save/17285288276.png
27,8,24,34 (13-19 ), 15(39), 24,43 x
No. 33 Ju. Chesnokov ( 0 points)
https://fmjd.org/dias2/save/17285293256.png
1.16-11(26-31) 2.25-20 (or 2.22 x -A. Fedoruk. )

No. 34 Ju. Chesnokov ( 2,5 points)

1.44 2.33(24-28) 3.11 4. 4 x
I. P. is A. P. de Zwart "De wasrheig", 19.9.1981
https://fmjd.org/dias2/save/17285300738.png
43,18,33(28), 11,13;x
S. Yushkevich: “Zabaikalsky Rabochy”, March 12, 1987.
https://fmjd.org/dias2/save/17285304588.png
12,42(24), 38,7 x
No. 35 Ju. Chesnokov [ has no decision ( 0 points) ]

No. 36 Ju. Chesnokov ( 4 points))
в
1.17-11 22:31 2. 2 13-18 3.2-7 29-34 4.7:5 34:43 5.5-37 31:42 6.47:49 25-30 7.45-40 35:44 8.49-40 x
"A similar sacrifice of the king on square 37 was encountered in many miniatures. A whole group of checkers in No. 36 starts playing only at the endgame . which weakens the impression of the combination actions. Mediocre composition reminiscent of the finale of the drafts party . Score 4 points",- A. Fedoruk..
*************************************
S.Kovalev (Ussuriysk)- Candidate for Master on Checkers Composition.

No. 37 S. Kovalev (4 points)

"Mediocre. The game is quite ordinary, has no brightness.", - A. Fedoruk

No. 38 S. Kovalev ( 3 points)

1 19-13 9-14 2.21-17 18:9 3.38-33 4.17:10 30-34 [ 4...9-14 5.25:34 6.34-39 7.29-23 ]
5.10-4 9-14 6.4-18 34-39 7.18-34 8.25:34 x
Partial predecessor is M. Koipers: "De problemist", May 1954 (reported by S. Yushkevitch)
https://fmjd.org/dias2/save/17286540731.png
1.37-32 2.17 3.10 (14, 9) 5.31 6.32 7.13 x
A. Fedoruk suggested such a variation(Febr.,of 08.1988 )
https://fmjd.org/dias2/save/17286544031.png
34-29(27), 8(27-32)?, , 7,33,10 etc. x
"Judging by the need to prove the legality of the initial position of the checkers and taking into account the balance of power between the parties the work on the problem is not finished yet.", - A. Fedoruk.
No. 39 S. Kovalev ( 3 ,5 points)

1.27-21 2.37-31 3.47-41 4.36-31 5 31:2 x
I. p. is J. Burgraaff , 1936 , books by J. L. Gortmans , "1001 miniature ".
https://fmjd.org/dias2/save/17286560843.png
31,34-20, 42,15,4,2 x
"A different approach to the final has achieved by clearly worsening the initial arrangement of the checkers",- A. Fedoruk .

No. 40 S. Kovalev ( 5 ,5 points)

There was known before : S. Jilevichus, 5-th Soviet Union championship, 1984, 7 points .
https://fmjd.org/dias2/save/17286569652.png
1.20-14 2.5 .3. 5:11 7 4.:34 7-12 5.38-32 12-18 6.32-28 09 7.15-10 9:14 8.10:19 18:23 9.34-30 . 28:19:08 x
"Despite the fact that the final part was found in several miniatures, including those of S. Zhilevichius, No. 40 looks quite independent and even a good composition.Score is 5,5 points",- A. Fedoruk.
.
Juozas Leišis, Lithuania - Candidate for Master on Checkers Composition.

No. 41 Juozas Leišis, Lithuania ( 0 points) : Due to the second solution.
No.42 Juozas Leišis (4, 5 points ) .

31,11,3,23,24,45 x
"Such a sacrifice of the king in miniatures has long been no rarity.
Relatively distant predecessor is V. Mulyar: 4th USSR Championship, 1979.".
https://fmjd.org/dias2/save/17286588932.png
9,4,28,19,24 x
The initial arrangement of the checkers is extremely unnatural .There was not used the rules of hundred-square checkers in the combination . score is 4,5 points ", -A. Fedoruk.

No. 43 Juozas Leišis ( 0 points) : Due to the second solution.
No. 44 Juozas Leišis ( 5,5 points) :

1.30 2.17 3..18 4.28,5. 37 6.27 x
"A curious, though not complicated combinational mechanism, in which all the checkers were used. It's a pity that No. 44 lacks brightness", -A. Fedoruk.

No. 45 Juozas Leišis ( 5,0 points) :

24,43,31 etc. x
"Standard techniques of play.checker 46 plays only in the final. Satisfactory miniature- 5 points.",-A.Fedoruk .

No. 46 Juozas Leišis, Lithuania ( 0 points) :

23.27,2,50 x
"Marriage : close predecessor G. L. Gortmans :No.646 in his book
"1001 miniature".
https://fmjd.org/dias2/save/17287676003.png
39-33, 27,2,17,50x

S.Zhabchik (Rivne) .First category on checkers composition.

No. 47 S.Zhabchik (Rivne) 0 points

37-32, 48-43, 47-41, 50:10=
"Repeats the miniature of V. Matus from 64,No.1 , 1972 .
https://fmjd.org/dias2/save/17287684046.png
41,34,44,10 x In addition, V. Matus sent for publication variation No. 47 to the magazine "64 - chess review " at the end of 1982.", - A. Fedoruk.

No. 48 S.Zhabchik (Rivne) 3,5 points

36-31, 49-43, 25:14 x
I. p. is G. L. Gortmans : "1001 miniature,"No.852
https://fmjd.org/dias2/save/17287690733.png
44,31,24,3x
No. 49 S.Zhabchik (Rivne) 3,0 points

46-41 49-43, 44-39 , 39:6 etc. x
"Poor initial checker placement, passive black checker 5 and obvious first move of white",- A Fedoruk .
No. 50 S.Zhabchik (Rivne) 0 points

48-43, 32-28, 46:20, 50-44 x side decision : 1.27 2.9 x
There was known before :No.117 from the book by G. L. Gortmans :"1001 miniature "
https://fmjd.org/dias2/save/17287702677.png
44, , 23, 25 x
No. 52 S.Zhabchik (Rivne) .0 points

48-42, 47-41, 6-1, 1:20, 39-35, 25:14 x
Second solution : 1.33-28x Score is 0 points.

No. 53 Kedrov U. A. (Moscow)=A.Fedoruk : 3,5 points

1.50-44 2.31-27 3.16:7 4.33-29! 5.6-1 30-34 6.1:38 34-40 7.38-39 40-45 8.33-50 x
"The combination with a breakthrough to cell "1 " is standard, but such a final motif in miniatures apparently has never been seen before",- A. Fedoruk.

A.R.Nagumanov (Moscow) - master on drafts composition.

No. 54 A Nagumanov (Moscow) : 6 points

1.30-24 2. 25:1 44 3.7 4.8 5.28(49)A, 6.37 7.38 (32) 8.17 9.38 x
A(36), 32 (44), 7,8 , 29(49), 32.32 (18), 28 x
"Ideological predecessor is E. Tkachenko : thematic contest "64", 1974
https://fmjd.org/dias2/save/17287747376.png
44, 28-22 , 2, 43 38(32), 17,38 x
King sacrifice on the sixth move is not a bad addition to a well-known theme. It's just a shame that the first move of the solution is too obvious. A good miniature - 6 points",-A.Fedoruk..

Derevetsky V.A. (Dnepropetrovsk), candidate for master on checkers composition, No. 55-58.

Derevetsky V.A. No. 55.

34-23 , 9, 4(39), 39-34, 34 x
"In this miniature, one can only note the non-standard undermining of point 4, the theme of the composition as a whole is not new. Here is one of the predecessors: J.A. Pennings (Netherlands): Whites: 15,23,27,29,38,39,42 Blacks: 4,10,11/13, 18,34 solution: 21,16,9,4 ;"Her Damspel, No. 5, 1960(information indicated by S. Yushkevitch. )
J. A. Pennigs : "H.D.", No. 5,1960.
https://fmjd.org/dias2/save/17287933718.png
Score of No. 55 taking into account I. p. - 3.5 points", - A. Fedoruk.

Derevetsky V.A. No.56.

5,12,26:17, 46:36 x
I. p. is M. Tsvetov, 1973
https://fmjd.org/dias2/save/17287940215.png
1.38 x
S. Yushkevitch :"Gudok.", March, of 15 , 1980.
https://fmjd.org/dias2/save/17287942211.png
Legality of the uinitial checkers arrangement :1.42-38 (43:23)
Also there was known before :U.Ahrameev ("64", No. 43,1977 )
https://fmjd.org/dias2/save/17287948573.png
23(47), 3(15), 20, 39,34 x
"Differs from its predecessors by a more economical construction and choice of black's battle on the second move . However, a big minus is the unpleasant arrangement of checkers and the need to prove the legality of the initial construction of checkers. Rather mediocre than good composition - 5 points",- A. Fedoruk .

Derevetsky V.A. No.57.


1.29-23 40 2.9 (25-30) 3.39-34 ! (40-20) 4.9-3 (30-24) 5.3-12 (24-29) 6.12:25 (35-40) 7.25:39 x
A 2.. (40-45) 3.9-4 (35-40) 4.4-10! (35-30) 5.24:44 (45-50) 6.10-23 (50-45) 7.23-1 (45-50) 8.1-45 x
1...(18-20), 2.27:9 (20-24) 3.9-4(25:30) 4.34:25 (35-40) 5.39-34 (40:29) 6.4-15 x
"The content is based on famous etudes : Colman Turiy; 64- Chess Review, issue 6, 1983, 5th USSR Championship.
https://fmjd.org/dias2/save/17287967458.png
9(34-40)S, 39(30) B , 34,3 (34), 12 x
Boris Ruchkin: Dambrete, No. 1, 1978
https://fmjd.org/dias2/save/17287970137.png
1.9 etc. x
The author's contribution is valued minimally. Score is 1 point ", -A. Fedoruk.

Derevetsky V.A. No.58

31-27, 9,4 (39-34) , 44 ,50 x
"Strong resemblance to the predecessor of J. A. Sheijen, 1946 "4650 problemen op 46/5" ".
https://fmjd.org/dias2/save/17287980141.png
37,9, 4(35), 1(44), 50!, 23,5 x
S. Yushkevitch : " Dambrete ", No. 4-1973
https://fmjd.org/dias2/save/17287983236.png
27,9 , 14, 4 (19), 10(24), 15(30), 29,43 x
"Miniature is inferior in quality to both predecessors and is equal to an independent composition only due to its different finale.Weak miniature -2 points",-A.Fedoruk .