There are few countries that can field as strong a team of expert twomove composers as those competing in this match, and I therefore looked forward with enthusiasm to the judging process. When I first saw the chosen theme, I must admit I doubted whether it offered enough scope for interest and originality. I need not have worried. The best of the 24 problems submitted (there were 12 from each country altogether) are splendid works, with plenty of really novel and ingenious ideas. I consulted Udo Degener, to whom I send my thanks, regarding possible anticipations, but he could find no obvious forerunners, and gave it as his view that the theme had not been much worked. He did offer a few published problems for comparison, but fortunately there was nothing among them that could be counted as a clear anticipation. However, I had to exclude A7 from consideration, as it was much too similar to the Lukyanov problem quoted in the match announcement. At a very late stage, A19, which would have occupied 11th place, was found to be totally anticipated (V. Pilchenko & V. Shavyrin, Zadachi i Etyudy 2000) and had to be removed from the award.

There can be no doubt that the theme is not easy to set intensively. Among the competing problems there were a few that aimed at a task rendering, but these, in my view, were not among the top entries, and most of them displayed constructional weaknesses that ruled them out of contention. In fact, the difficulty of the theme is shown by the fact that almost all the entries, even the best of them, show some feature of construction that is not ideal. In my remarks I comment on these features, many of them quite unavoidable.

 What caused me the most difficulty was the usual theme-tourney dilemma: how to compare intensive renderings of the theme, perhaps containing several phases or multiple mates on one square, with arguably better problems showing the theme in more restrained fashion. In the end the judge has to rely on his sense of chess problem aesthetics, which may sometimes tell against the intensive rendering. Fortunately, on this occasion most of the best entries were both fairly intensive and artistically satisfying, a real tribute to the skill and ingenuity of the composers involved. I thank them for providing such a fine range of high-quality problems, and I am very grateful for having been given the opportunity to study them in depth. It is worth mentioning as well that I found a few quite presentable problems among those that had to be excluded because of the high quality of the best 12 entries.

2nd place: A3 Arieh Grinblat & Semion Shifrin (Israel)

There are four phases here, with threats on four different squares, and all the variation-mates are given by the Re4. This unifying factor is what makes the problem so impressive. The white first-moves come in two pairs, with Q-mates threatened by 1.Qb6? and 1.b6? and S-mates by 1.Sd3? and 1.Sc2! The subsequent mates by the R are likewise paired, with two double-checkmates by the battery and two battery-openings retaining control of a flight. There is useful by-play in all phases, and the composer has ensured that the wQ has a role to play after the key. Is there a weakness to criticise here? Yes: the key-piece is badly out of play, and the solver might well have the same experience as I did in spotting the S-moves and the R-mates before noticing the play involving the wQ. However, the key-piece does offer a couple of other (non-thematic) tries, and the intensity and unity of the thematic play represent more than adequate compensation.

3rd place: A18 Milan Velimirović (Serbia)

Great constructional skill has been shown by the composer of this problem in achieving a reciprocal change of the mates on c4 following 1…exd6 and 1…Bxe5. These mates cannot be played until e5 has been guarded or blocked; then the choice of mating piece depends on a variety of effects including access to c4 for the Q and the need to retain a guard on c6 and/or e4 after capture of one or the other of the two wSs. The longer I studied this problem, the greater was my admiration for the ingenuity of the setting. An impressive piece of work.

4th place: A9 Menachem Witztum & Emanuel Navon (Israel)

An almost equally impressive problem. The composer has set himself an interesting challenge: double threats on different squares in the two phases, with thematic variation-mates on each threat-square. Furthermore, these mates follow the same defences in the two phases, an excellent unifying feature. In such a closely-fought contest the judge cannot ignore one or two constructional blemishes: the wQ plays a very modest role, especially after the key, the Pg7 is needed for the try-play only, and, perhaps most seriously, the wSd8 has no part to play once the key has been made. Without this S the problem would not work at all; now and then one has to accept such things. Overall the composer deserves commendation for surmounting the undeniable challenge imposed by the double threats.

5th place: A21 Dragan Stojnić (Serbia)

Two tries by the Bd5 threaten mate by one of White’s Ss on c4, the potential mate by the other S being avoided as a threat in Sushkov style, though it is only after 1.Bxe6? that the avoided threat reappears as a variation mate. After 1.Bxe4? a different mate arises on c4, and this turns out to be the threat introduced by the key. The two S-mates both reappear after self-blocks on d5 and f5. In addition, a Dombrovskis effect is also discernible within the try-play. As in the entry placed 4th, the wQ’s role is relatively slight, but the change of mate after 1…Bxd6 (which refutes 1.Bxe4?) compensates to some extent, and the two by-play mates by the Rb4 are also a valuable bonus.

6th place: A13 Marjan Kovačević (Serbia)

Threat and two mates on each of two squares, with the same black defences in each phase, one of them an unpin of the wQ. This well unified concept, however, suffers from the fact that the wRh4 clearly cannot be brought into play by 1.bxc4?, which makes the key a much more likely introduction. Nonetheless, the problem has considerable appeal and well deserves this relatively high placing.

7th place: A10 Miodrag Mladenović (Serbia)

As in the problem placed 6th, the same two black defences lead to thematic mates on different squares. The cramped white position is unattractive, but the play is nonetheless appealing and the whole concept works well. The bPd3 could be saved if the wPd2 were shifted to c2, but it’s possible the composer wanted to avoid insignificant duals after moves by the Ba5 off the diagonal in the post-key play, especially as one of these moves is the refutation of the try.

8th place: A12 Yosi Retter (Israel)

A fourfold realisation of the theme incorporating a double pseudo le Grand, with attractive pinning refutations in 1…g5! and 1…Qf8! However, it seems to me highly regrettable that the mates by the white Ss appear only as duals after the key. Even allowing for the fact that the basic aim of the problem is a double reciprocal effect, I should have preferred to see mates A and B recur post-key. It would not be hard to achieve this, though at the cost of some extra units, and the underused wQ could be saved at the same time.

9th place: A24 Aharon Hirschenson (Israel)

An interesting interpretation of the theme involving three white units making threats and giving variation-mates on three different squares in a cyclic pattern. Sadly, this impressive idea does not result in a wholly convincing problem. Heavy white force is called for to make it all work, with the consequence that some of this force is underused. Furthermore, the black play is not well integrated. This good idea deserves a better setting, and maybe one day a more manageable matrix will be discovered for it.

10th place: A14 Marjan Kovačević (Serbia)

In this setting of the le Grand pattern four pieces mate on f3 in the course of the play. But there is a serious weakness: too obviously the Sh3 has nothing to do where it is, so the solver will assume it must be on the board in order to make the key. Consequently the try-play could easily be overlooked, especially as 1.Sb4? has to be a specific move (not 1.Sd~?) so that d5 is guarded after 1…Bxc4. Others might view this problem differently, but to my mind it is not entirely successful.

11th place: A20 Uri Avner (Israel)

The le Grand pattern once again, but in a setting where the theme is rendered almost as if by accident. Since the mechanism is well known, it surprises me slightly that the composer did not attempt to introduce a Dombrovskis effect by making 1…Sf4 a defence in the try-play. It can be done by shifting Sg2 to h3, Rh5 to g5, removing Pf4 and adding wPf2. Perhaps the need for this extra wPf2, making the flight-giving key even more evident, was a decisive factor. At all events a pleasant problem, but hardly a strong contender in a field where many entries set the theme much more intensively and with greater originality.

12th place: A17 Milan Velimirović & Dragan Stojnić (Serbia)

When tries and key are made by the same piece, the unity of a problem is considerably enhanced (compare A1 and A21). In this example, it is not just the variation mates that occur on the threat square: the principal defences do so too. Of course, this inevitably leads in one case to capture of the defending unit. The appealing post-key variation 1…d4 2.Bd6 compensates to some extent.