Български (България)English (United Kingdom)
My selected compositions from WCCI 2010-2012

diyan(03.07.2013) Two days ago the judges of World Championship in Composing for Individuals 2010-2012 complete their work. The results will be available on 01.09.2013. Here you can see nine of my championship entries. Hope that you will enjoy them.



1.S:b3 B:b6 2.Sbd4 Ba5#, 1.B:f2 S:d2 2.Bd4 Sb1#

Open of two double closed lines, reciprocal captures,

2 different selfblocks on d4, Zilahi, Meredith.


1.Se7 Q:d6+ 2.K:d6 c4 3.Re5 c5#

1.Qg7 Q:d5+ 2.K:d5 c3 3.Qe5 c4#

1.Se3 Q:d4+ 2.K:d4 Kb4 3.e5 c3#

Three different black pieces blocks on e5,

three different sacrifices of the white Queen

and model mates by the white pawn.

a) 1.Kh8 f8Q#

b) 1.Ka6 b7 2.Ra8 b8Q 3.Bd8 Q:a8#

c) 1.Kh3 g:h4 2.Rg6 h5 3.Kh4 h6 4.Kh5 h7 5.Kh6 h8Q#

d) 1.Be2+ K:e2 2.d3+ c:d3 3.c2 d4 4.Kc3 d:e5 5.Kd4 e6

6.Ke5 e7 7.Ke6 e8Q#

4 white Queen promotions, model mates, white minimal,

play in all directions of the board, interesting twin form

with rotations and +2 moves – thematic complex shown here for the first time!



  1.Sd8? (2.Re5+ Kf6 3.Re6+ Kf5 4.Rf6+ e:f6#), 1…Rf7!

  1.h8S! (2.Be4+ K:e6 3.B:c6+ Kf5 4.B:d7+ e6#)

1…f2 2.Sed4+ Kf6 2.R:f2+ Rf4 4.Se2+ e5#

1…d:e6 2.Re5+ Kf6 3.R:e6+ Kf5 4.Rf6+e:f6#

1…c:d5 2.Se3+ K:e6 3.Sc4+ Kf5 4.Sd6+ e:d6#

Creation of four white batteries and Pickaninny mates –

a task shown here for the first time!

  1.Qg6? (2.Qe4+ R:e4 3.R:d3+ B:d3#), 1…Sf4!

  1.Ra4! [2.Sb6+ Sb4 3.Se6+ R:e6 4.Ra:b4+ Bc4#]

1…Se1 2.Qg4+ Re4 3.Se5+ Bc4 4.Sf3+ S:f3#

1…Sc1 2.Be5+ R:e5 3.Sa5+ Bc4 4.Sb3+ S:b3#

1…R:d2 2.Se3+ Sb4 3.Se6+ Kc3 4.Sd1+ R:d1#


[1…Sf4 2.B:f4 (3.Be5+…), 1…S:c5 2.Qg4+ ~3.Q:e4+…,   

1…Sb4 2.Sb6+/Ra:b4…]

Transformations of black battery in combination with

double opening of black thematic diagonal f1-a6 (probably

shown for the first time), 4 times white battery play, dual


  1.Sh7! (2.Bc7+! f4 3.Bf3+ Kf5 4.R:f4+ S:f4

5.Qd7+ Se6 6.Be4+ K:e4 7.Qd5+ c:d5#)

  1…c:d4 2.Bg3+! f4 3.R:f4+ Ke5 4.R:f7+! Ke4

5.Sf6+ Kf5 6.Sd7+ Ke4 7.Sc5+ R:c5# 

  1…B:c2 2.Bh6+! f4 3.R:f4+ Ke3 4.Rf1+! Ke4

5.Bf3+ Kf5 6.Be2+ Sf4(Ke4) 7.Bd3+ B:d3#

Two times reciprocal transformations of white B-R battery

into R-B and creation of new white batteries after critical moves.

The initial white battery plays one more time in the threat.



a) 1...a1Q! 2.a8B!! Qxa8(wK=rB) 3.rBf4 c1B!

4.bxa8R(bK=rQ)+! rQxa8(wrB=rR)#

b) 1…a1R! 2.a8S!! Rxa8(wK=rS) 3.rSb3 c1S!

4.bxa8Q(bK=rR)+! rRxa8(wrS=rQ)#

White and black AUW, total of 6 captures and 8 different pieces playing on a8, corner to corner play, specific KoBul Kings and Madrasi effects, pawns only position.


a) 1.a8R! nBPd1R! 2.Rxd8 (zz) nrPb1R!#

b) 1.a8Q! nBPd1Q! 2.Qxf3 (zz) nrPb1Q!#

c) 1.a8B! nBPb1B! 2.nBxe4 (zz) nrPb1B!#

d) 1.a8S! nBPb1S! 2.nSd2 (zz) nrPb1S!#

Mates after promotions of neutral Royal Pawn into all pieces (AUW),

total of 3(!) different AUWs during the play, Meredith, play without checks.

   2x2 thematic connected variations:

- in a) and b) there are annihilations of the black Knight by the white promoted major pieces for paralyzing of the neutral major promoted pieces

- in c) and d) there is Umnov theme on b1 after self-paralyzing of the neutral promoted minor pieces.


a) 1.hnLEb1(wLE)+ Ka8! 2.LEb6+ hnNAg6(bNA)#

(3.NAh4?? – hnNA in black phase) (3.LEh7?? closed line)

b) 1.hnVAxe3(wVA) Kb7! 2.VAb6+ hnLEe4(bLE)#

(3.LEh7?? – hnLE in black phase) (3.VAh6?? closed line)

c) 1.hnNAxd2(wNA) Ka7! 2.NAb6+ hnVAf8(bVA)#

(3.VAh6?? – hnVA in black phase) (3.NAh4?? closed line)

Cyclic change of functions of two groups with three thematic pieces LEb4, NAc4, VAc5 and hnLEh7, hnNah4, hnVah6; creation of direct and indirect white anti-batteries; three different bK moves, chinese third battery play, three different white Pieces playing on b6. 



+10 #1 alex 2013-07-04 04:09
So much prizes... impressive!
+8 #2 Diyan Kostadinov 2013-07-05 05:44
Thanks Alex! Yes, this period was definitely successful for me.
+7 #3 seetharaman 2013-07-16 12:17
Congrats on your third place finish in the WCCI! Nice that five of your entries were good enough for the FIDE Album. It was a close finish for the second and third places. Mr.Selivanov with some superb problems walked away with the First place Congrats to him!
+5 #4 Diyan Kostadinov 2013-07-18 12:39
Thank you Ram!
+2 #5 Sven-Hendrik Lossin 2013-07-19 07:47
Dear Ram,
dear Diyan,

"Nice that five of your entries were good enough for the FIDE Album."

How do you know that?

By the way: My 22nd place in the selfmate section is disappointing. I was in hope to make it to the top ten because I have seen so very few good selfmates in recent years and like some of mine a lot.
+2 #6 seetharaman 2013-07-19 11:23
Quoting Sven-Hendrik Lossin:
Dear Ram,
dear Diyan,

"Nice that five of your entries were good enough for the FIDE Album."

How do you know that?

By the way: My 22nd place in the selfmate section is disappointing. I was in hope to make it to the top ten because I have seen so very few good selfmates in recent years and like some of mine a lot.

Dear Sven. I understand your disappointment. This link contains the complete points table. wfcc.ch/.../... the last column, the problems which go the FIDE Album are given.
In this year WCCI tourney, all problems scoring 8 points or more are automatically selected for the FIDE Album. FIDE Album judges will be informed by the Director and they will judge the other entries only.
0 #7 Sven-Hendrik Lossin 2013-07-19 13:23
Thank you for your compassion, Ram!
There may be some reasons.
Maybe some of my works simply weren't good enough and my name not known to them.
Formal themes are still highly rated, I think. This is not the way I compose selfmates, for example to show cycles, albinos etc. My compositions often feel more like studies than selfmates. This is probably nothing for a s# judge who has to judge more than 200 selfmates and is not familiar with studies.
This is especially true for P1230467 (PDB number) which is a very dense tempo fight many study composers would be proud of. Solving GM Kacper Piorun was very astonished when I showed him 2.Shf6!! He couldn't believed that this would be the right move.
And this is also true for P1259116 where you have a similar effect with 2.f6!! when white voluntarily closes the black attacking line. In this selfmate the black defence is very deep.
Maybe the judges from the study section would have been the right ones for my s# ;)
+2 #8 Diyan Kostadinov 2013-07-19 14:15
Well, Sven, I know that each composer sometime is disappointed, but its happens... Your problems are nice (I especially like n.1) and as you mention they are difficult for solving. The difficulty is important, but there are also another aspects in the content which should be pointed - such as harmony, pure, strategy etc. Unfortunatelly in your problems some rough captures exist. But as you see the scores of all 5 judges are similar - about 2, so this prove that they are objective. The exception is my 0 point in n.5, but this is because of dual 4.Qc6+/Ra6+ and 5.Qxb5+/Qe8+ in the threat.
+2 #9 Sven-Hendrik Lossin 2013-07-19 14:58
Quoting Diyan Kostadinov:
...about 2, so this prove that they are objective.

Yes, they are objective from the perspective of recent judgement. I hope that people find out that my way to compose is a possible evolution for the selfmate genre like it was with Gamnitzer about 20 years ago. I know that captures are seen to be rough in a selfmate context but if you were a study judge you probably wouldn't even notice them because there they are a normal part of the introductory play.

Quoting Diyan Kostadinov:
The exception is my 0 point in n.5, but this is because of dual 4.Qc6+/Ra6+ and 5.Qxb5+/Qe8+ in the threat.

Yes I already guessed that and I also feel that this weakens this selfmate. Maybe there'll never be a sound display on this Gamnitzer theme on the long diagonal (PDB P1260837).

Thanks for your helpful comments! Regretfully I receive little feedback to my work.
+3 #10 Nikola Predrag 2013-07-19 23:19
The original idea, presented intensively, convincingly and economically, makes a content of a problem. That's THE STANDARD for objective evaluation. Anything else are private preferences which should be suppressed by the judges in the official events.
Harmony/disharmony and difficulty/easyness are only the TOOLS for achieving THE STANDARD, they are not the GOALS. Unfortunately, the cheap ornaments like nonthematic 'harmony' and nonthematic 'difficulty' are rather popular and the objective evaluation is in danger.
If THE STANDARD is achieved (an original idea is presented intensively, convincingly and economically), then nothing could be lacking, everything is just as it should be.
+2 #11 Nikola Predrag 2013-07-19 23:21
Thematic difficulty could highlight a deep and HIDDEN idea. Simple idea could be BURIED under many nonthematic variations and attempts. But such nonthematic difficulty does not intensify the content, it spoils it. I'll spend some time in unsuccesful solving but then I'll look at the solution. If I see no interesting idea, I am sorry for having wasted my time. With 'Gamnitzer', I'm usually sorry for not spending more time in solving, because there is some surprizing idea in the end as a prize for the solver's effort.
+1 #12 Nikola Predrag 2013-07-21 00:27
Dear Sven-Hendrik, I think that your talent for creating a fighting tension in selfmates is obvious. Such study-like selfmates mmight indeed be worthy.
One s#7 that you mentioned is pretty good but in my subjective opinion, it would have to be just a bit more convincing for Fide Album.
The other s#7 might seem even better but a closer look reveals a crucial failure, since the best part of the idea became completely irrelevant in the realisation.
0 #13 seetharaman 2013-07-23 02:33
The exception is my 0 point in n.5, but this is because of dual 4.Qc6+/Ra6+ and 5.Qxb5+/Qe8+ in the threat.
I have NOT seen the problem in question. So my question is general. In evluating, I thought judges awarded '0' points only to unsound or anticipated problems. I think duals in the threat line is similar defect like a short threat. Therefore can it make the problem unsound or cooked?
0 #14 Sven-Hendrik Lossin 2013-07-26 22:14
Well, I have always seen it as a virtue with P1259116 that White must get rid of the idea of f7. But the selfmate has a problem: the white play from move 4 on would also have been possible if black did not play 3.-Bg7. This is a serious flaw.

And with P1230467: I still feel that this one is fantastic (great key, very clear theme that white needs to lose a tempo because the knights are unable to do that, exchange of functions and all this with only 16 pieces) and it is unfair that it is judged by measures that are used for selfmates where the black play is only used to make the white variations possible. Maybe the time for stuff like that will come but it is a pity that this one will probably be forgotten.

@Diyan: Sorry that I spoiled the thread here.
Maybe I can turn to matplus with Nikola to discuss this issue further.
0 #15 Sven-Hendrik Lossin 2013-07-26 22:29
Dear seetharaman,

I am not sure if there is something like a 'book of standards' for judging. I only heard that there are some things that are agreed upon, for example that a selfmate is not unsound due to a 'black dual'. But this is still one of the issues where judges evaluate very differently.

In this special case I agree that the threatening situation detracts but Diyan was the only one who gave 0 points to it where it is in my eyes not easy to decide if he is right with this judgement or not.

If your "I think duals in the threat line is similar defect like a short threat." is true then it may have been wrong.
+1 #16 Nikola Predrag 2013-07-27 01:19
Yes, MatPlus is back, we can discuss there or by e-mail. Here is not the place for long discussions but for shorter and clear comments. (Admittedly, my comments are often too long)
Thanks Diyan for the patience and web-space so far.
+1 #17 Diyan Kostadinov 2013-07-27 03:24
Ram, the short threat is a weakness but don't unsound a problem. The dual in the threat usually is more serious weakness which destroy the problem. Of course there are some exceptions, but it should be avoided.
Sven, I believe that for the period you had enough good problems and the participation with problem with dualistic threat was wrong choice, because no one can predict the judges reaction in such a case. For example - I also make wrong selection of my problems in the fairy section and forgot to include some quite good problems, winners in different tourneys. Petko Petkov also told me that he miss to include his best problem.
Also you shoud have to know that many of the judges in WCCI was also judges in WCCT, so for a very short period they should judge a hundreds compositions which is difficult. Part of these compositions was with wrong solutions, misprints, different notations... So the judges work is not so easy task. But I believe that the results are objective.

Add comment

Security code

Deprecated: Function ereg() is deprecated in /home/youcult/public_html/chessbul/templates/edenrock/s5_tab_show_ER.php on line 5

Deprecated: Function ereg() is deprecated in /home/youcult/public_html/chessbul/templates/edenrock/s5_tab_show_ER.php on line 9



site for chess composition

 General editor:

Diyan Kostadinov


Seetharaman Kalyan

Recent comments