Replies to protests

	Before going into details, we shall draw your attention to the following remarks:
Several "protests" have reiterated variations already mentioned in the entry booklet. For example: B10, B31, B39, B49, B52, B55, B59, B78, B80, C04, C12, C72, etc.
	In general, authors have the right to define the contents of their problems. Furthermore, moves that do not defeat the threat, are not considered variations. Accordingly, no duals should be claimed for problems B21, C22, C34, C65, C70, C86, C95, etc. For several problems showing equivalent types of false "drawbacks" no protests were submitted (for example, the irrelevant continuation 2…b6 after 1...Tc8 2.Tc7 in С93 is similar to the main 2...T:c7, but allows for duals). There were additional protests concerning duals in insignificant variations. It looks as if some teams have decided to exert psychological pressure on judges by commenting on "garbage" variations with "duals" that have no bearing whatsoever on the quality of the problems.

	A004 – Reply: The problem of Morse can hardly be seen as anticipation. It is a bad problem. A04 is much more economical and has better content (2 x selfblocks).
	A027 –  Reply: First: the errata correction is wrong.  The right correction is: "In the solution there are two more thematic variations, 1.- Le4/Dxc4  2.Se2/Sxf5#." So, the problems are quite different: in Heathcote there are 4 unpins, 2 unpins with corrections and loss of guard, 4 captures with battery mate. In A27, on the other hand, there are 3 unpins, 5 captures with battery mate, 2 selfblocks. Also: in Heathcote's problem, in set play there is no mate after 1..., Se3+. In this way A27 is better.
	A031 – Reply: There is not "dual in defence" in this problem: the defences 1.- Tb4+/Te3:+ were mentioned by the author, but not as a thematic group of variations. The problem really has three different thematic groups: I. 1.- Ld4/Td4 (Grimshaw); II. 1.- Le5:/T8e5: (self-pins); III. 1.- Sc6/Te6 (self-blocks). 
	A044 – Reply: The problem by J.C. Wainwright, St. John Globe 1902, shows two thematic groups and A044, shows three. Therefore, this problem can't be considered an anticipation. 
	A091 – Claim: 1.- Le2 2.S:e2/Sf5# - strong dual; Reply: There is formally a dual but within  focal theme where it is tolerable (similar to indistinguishable promotions in the mating move, e.g. 2.d8=D,T#) as could be shown by numerous examples. Shortly, arrival of a black piece to the mating square where it is captured by white mating piece in practice does not mean dualistic variation. Some examples: A) A.W. Galitzky - Deutsche Schachztg. 1890. Position: W:Kg1 Dc6 Sc5 P:a3,b2 (5); B:Ka5 Lc4 Sb3 Sd6 (4); Solution: 1.Kh2! La6 2.Da6:#,Sb3:# (same dual as in protested composition A091); B) C.Mansfield - Morning Post 1923. Position: W:Kd7 Da3 Tf7 Sf1 Sf3 (5); B:Ke4 Tg2 P:d5,d4(4); Solution :  Set 1...Td2 2.S1d2:#,Sg3# (dual);  1...Tg3 2.Sg3:#,S1d2# (dual - same story!) and post Key: 1.Da6 Zz Tg6 2.Dg6:#,De2# and 1...Te2 2.Dg6#,De2:# (ergo, there are 4 duals in this composition!). It is a classical example of focal theme and nobody has protested about those fourfold duals!; C) E.Kubbel III Pr. "Good Companions" 1916. Position: W: Ka7 Th6 La3 Lc4 Sf6 Sg3 P:c3 e3 (8); B:Ke5 Dd1 P:a4 d7 e6 h7 (6)- Solution:  Set 1...Dg4 2.Sd7:#,Sg4:# (dual); also 1...D~ (multiple duals). Post Key: 1.Sfe4 Dh5 2.Th5:#,Ld6# (dual) and reciprocal 1...Dd6 2.Th5#,Ld6:# (dual); and finally 1...D~ (multiple duals). So we believe that there is tolerable dual in question but not "strong dual"!
	A105 – Reply: Not a complete anticipation. A105 has a complete S-wheel.

	B03 – Reply: The claim of duals is not a serious blemish because of too weak black play. The bDd3 is in multiple focus position. Qd3 controls the thematic pin of wSf5 and mate 2.Dc4#, and also, which is important to notice, the d-line against 2.Dd7+ (2.-Kc5 3.Dd6#, 2.-Ke4 Dd4#). Thus a random move by bDd3 allows all of these continuations. Naturally this means kind of duals, however this is not a helpmate, but a direct mate, where  black must and will  make only useful  moves. Being a zugzwang problem makes the black choice of moves more wide, but still the concept of secondary  threat(s) is valid, limiting the available real choices. Black D must be careful in selecting her moves. Only the following moves are playable (with compensating effects): 1.-Da6+ (check), 1.-Dxc3 (eliminating white control to d4 and e5), 1.-Db5 (controlling d7 and b4), 1.-Dxf5+ (check) and 1.-De4 (keeping control of c4 and still pinning Sf5). Move 1.-Dd4? Controls the secondary threats on move 2., but not on mating moves, because of the capture of the D. All the rest moves by bDd3 are clearly inferior, including the indicated moves 1.-De2? and 1.-Df1?, which makes more than one error (unpinning wSf5 and giving up the control of d-line, without compensating effects). So these moves, away from the focus position, are no intelligent black defences. Thus they have no major interest in the problem showing partial secondary Fleck, which is an fully accepted, but perhaps not the preferred concept in most  (but not necessarily in all) schools of composing.  Thus B03 should not be considered as incorrect, and note also that maybe some compensating factors for the quality of the problem exist. For comparison couple of examples are presented: Fide Album 1962-64 no. 298 Robin Matthews 1st Prize (!) "Probleemblad" 1962: Kg3,Td1,f4,Le1,f3,Sb2,Sc6-Ke3,Db5,Ta5,La6,Sb1,Sh3, pd4,d6,f5. 3X  1.Se7 ZZ. If black plays a random move by the bQ standing at focus. e.g. 1.-Db8,6 white can play either 2.Sxf5+ or 2.Td3+. Note also that that besides the thematic defences 1.-Ta4, 1.-Ta3 black can play also 1.-Ta1,2 and white can continue either 2.Td3+ or 2.Sc4+. These "duals"  could be readily avoided by adding  wPa3. This addition is not done, showing the these kind of "duals" having no real importance. Note also that the Fide Album judges were Erich Zepler, Hans Lepuschutz and Josef Breuer. Fide Album   1968-70 no. 313 Friedrich Chlubna; 1st Prize (!) (according to Dreiklang) "Schach-Echo" 1970: Kb1,Dd1,Te8,Th4,La8,g1,Sf5,Sh7,pa2, c5,g2-Ke4,Df6,Tg5,Le5,Le6,Sa1,pd5,f3,f4,g4. 3X 1.Te7 ZZ  After 1.-Dh8, Dg7 both 2.Lxd5+ and 2.Sg3+.
	B10 – Reply: The problem presents the theme in set play and in solution with changed second or third move. The set play has dual free continuation for the flight square 1.-Kf5 2.Dh5+ Ke4 3.Dxe5#. Note that very few problems in WCCT B group has bK flights, which are generally considered to make problems more interesting. In the solution the same unthematical side variation is possible, with added (dual) mate 3. Se2#, as indicated in the author solution already. The claim of dual being the move 3. Dxe5# is incorrect (making the dual look more serious than it is) and the claim does not add new information either.
	B30 – Reply: B30 has, compared to the problem of Loshinsky and Umnov, extra line closing, and it is therefore not completely anticipated.
	B39 –  Reported: dual 1…Rg4 2.Q/Rxg4. Reply: The dual is trivial and does not seriously impair the problem.
	B49 – Claims: 1.- De5 2.Lb6:+ c5 3.Sc5 (is wrong, the correct move is: Lc5:)#/De5:#; Reply: The dual is mentioned in the booklet!
	B55 – Claims: 1.- Sf4 2.Lf4: ef4 3.De7#/De8#; Reply: The dual is mentioned in the booklet!
	B59 – Claim: dual: Tf2: 2.Df2: Df5 3.Tf5:#/Df5:#; Reply: This insignificant "dual" is already mentioned in the solution's original text.
	B80 – Reply: The claim for dual after 2.Da4+ d4 3.Dxd4/Dc6# is insignificant, because appears in the 3rd mating move of the threat.
	B84 – Claim: duals 1...Tf4 2.Dc5+/Dc4+,Dc3+ Reply: It is a minor variation; main variations 1...Tf5, 1...Tf3 and 1...T:f2 are O.K.

	C12 – Claims: 12...Ke2 13.Sce5/Sh4; Reply: The dual is mentioned in the booklet!
	C22 – Reply: Black defence 1.-Lc7 does not defend against the threat 2.Kh1, so the claim of a dual here is of no interest.
	C30 – Reply: It is hard to find similarities between C30 and Kuznetzov's problem, except for the use of blocking to guide a black pawn from 7th to 2nd row. - the key moves are different    - the blocking piece is different (K versus L) - the use of the black pawn at the 2nd row is quite different in Kuznetsov's problem the black pawn makes it possible tocapture on g2, in C30 it is forced to selfblock on a2.
	C33 – Reply: Yes, there are duals in 3rd or 4th move in insignificant variants.
	C34 – Claim: dual: 1.- Lf7 2.cd Lc4 3.Se6! b4 4.Sc7+/Sb8+ or 4.Sc5+ Kb5 5.dc/Da6#; Reply: This is not a real claim because in this minor sub-variation 3.- b4? is not defending against the threat 4.Sb8+!
	C54 –  Claim: The second white move of the threat is 2.e8D/T+; Reply: Such a promotion is generally allowed (because the point is not a rook-promotion).	
	C56 (C61, C83, C90) Reported:– scheme anticipated: Stefan Sovik, 1st Prize, Moment 2000-2001.  – Reply: The relationship between these problems and Sovik's is entirely superficial – a particular configuration of White T/L/S in which pieces change places.  But the manner in which this achieved, the thematic content and the general context are different. In particular one should note:
a) The Sovik problem is not a theme example, since the occupations of squares take place immediately, not after a delay.
b) Sovik has the formal pattern ABC/BCA/CAB, whereas all four of these problems have the pattern AB/BC/CA/
c) Sovik does not have the K-Umnovs which are the main strategic mechanism of C56 and C90.
– Though the position of the thematic pieces in C56, C61, C83 and C90 is the same as in the problem of Sovik, the content is essential different. The problem of Sovik would not be thematic for WCCT7!  
	C56 – Reported: duals:  1…Lg5/Lh6/Lc1 2.Te3+/Tf3;  1…Lg3/Lh2 2.Te3+/Tf3/Tg3; 1.- Sb6 2.Tg3 Le3 3.Sc3+/Le3:; 1.- Se7 2.Se7: Lb7 3.Dd5+/Ld5+. – Reply: The duals after Black L moves are in lines which do no defeat the threat (only 1..Ld2 defeats the threat and gives the unique continuation 2.Tf3). The other duals are unimportant and occur in non-thematic lines. The protests against C56 are therefore rejected.
	C58 – Reply: There is not a dual in the variation 1.- Sg4:. After 2.Sd5 there exists a double threat (3.Sc3+/f4), but if Black plays 2.- Sh8/h6/d8/d6/g5 or 2.- Tg8/g5 the unique white sequence is 3.Sc3+ and 4.f4#, just the sequence which achieves the theme. Certainly the protest was induced by the incorrect use of the symbol ~, meaning "any black move", in the solution (2.Sd5, ~).
	C61 – Claim: Scheme anticipated: Stefan Sovik, 1st Prize, Moment 2000-2001. Reply: The Sovik problem is not a real anticipation because: a) it does not fulfill the WCCT theme; b) the 7th WCCT was announced in October 2001, and no problem published after this date can anticipate any entry for the WCCT.
–  C61 is not anticipated; see also reply in C56.
	C71 – Reply: In C71 the active W pieces are Q,R,S; active Bl pieces are B and S. This pieces combination was never shown before, while Bl defence with B and S was used before only in Udartsev + Gamza work. In both problems the Bl defence passive effect is to open W lines, but the active effect is different: interference on W pieces in U.+G. problem, guard in C71.  In summary: - some likeness do exist in both problems (W line openings in favour of Q and R); - the scheme of W and Bl moves is similar, but the moves motivation and the whole manoeuvre are different: for instance the key, or the Bl defence reasons. Therefore it seems that a good originality remains in C.71, the theme being clearly shown even if with a not completely original scheme. So it's justified its existence and participation to the Tournament.
	C76 – Claim: anticipation: standard Popandopulo mechanism?  –  Reply: Thematic element in C76 is applied thirteen times on seven different squars. The problem is task. There is no direct anticipation. In the final position, the square e4 is controlled by Knight from seven different squares, and tries 1.Se8? and 1.Sb5 are refused because of double capture on squares f6 and c3.
	C78 – Reply: The problem of Belokon and Postnikov is not an anticipation. C78 has one thematical variation more and therefore is at least an essential improvement of the problem of  Belokon and Postnikov.
	C83 –  Claim:– scheme anticipated: Stefan Sovik, 1st Prize, Moment 2000-2001. Reply: Reply: The play in C83 is very different: no cyclic play of S-L-T and no rotation b7-c8, c8-d8, d8-b7. Of course, the similar position of three white units is not enough for anticipation.
	C86 –  Claim: Dual 1...T:d6 2.S2a3+ Ka4 3.Sd6 L:d6 4.Sc2+ or 4.Sc4+. Reply: It is a minor subvariation; main subvariation is 3...S:d6+ 4.K:a6! without dual.
	C90 – Reply: The claim is not correct. The position is legal. White misses a knight and four pawns. Black misses a rook and a knight. The white a-pawn did go straight on. The white b-pawn is captured by the black a-pawn. The white c-pawn captured a black piece on the b-line. The white d-pawn is captured on d2 by the black f-pawn and the black f-pawn captured the white knight on the e-line. The white e-pawn captured the other black piece on the d-line. This means white captured twice and black three times.  This is not a problem, so the position is legal.
–	The dual is mentioned already in the publication. It is a dual in a not thematic variation and has also no significance.
– C90 is not anticipated; see C56
	C92 – Claim: dual: I. 1…Ke5 2.Se8+, dual 2.e4 dxe3 3.Se8+ Kd5 4.Sc7+ Kd6 5.Sb5+ Kd5 6.f4 gxf3 7.Te4 fxe4 8.Thh4 c4  9.d (b)xc4+ Kc5 10.Ld4 #;  8...exd4 9.The4 ~ 10.Te5# ;  2...fxe4 3.Cxg4+ Kd6 4.Le5+ Kd5 5.Lc7 Lxg5 6.Sf6+ Fxf6 7.dxe4# 5..c4 6.Sf6+ Kc5 7.b4# ; 5...Sd6 6.Sf6+ Ke5 7.Txe4#; II. 1.Sf6+! Ke5 2.Sg8:+ (dual) Kd6 3.T4h6 Kc7 4.Lc8:+ Kb6 5.Tg6:+ Ka5 6.Ld4 Ld2 7.Ta6 Kb5 8.a4+ Kb4 9.Tb7+ Ka3 10.Lb2:#, dual 7.b4+ Ka4 8.Ta6+ Kb3 9.Le6+ c4 10.Lc4:#.; Reply: The main variation is 1...Kd6 which is free of duals. The possibility of 1...Ke5 was originally put in parenthesis (this was wrongly changed by the publishers of the entry booklet) because it was considered an irrelevant side-move that can simply lead into the main variation.
	C93 – Reply: The claim for anticipation concerns the setup of the white battery and its mating moves. However, the strategic content and effects are completely different between the two compositions, i.e. C93 has Nowotny interferences and the evacuations are realized in accordance with the theme requirements, while in the quoted problem the evacuations are not so.

	D08  – Claim: anticipation: I. V.Kovalenko, Shakhmatnaya kompozitsia , 1997, 2 Com. Reply: But this endgame is unsound and has no priority (Codex, Par. 23). Cooks: A) 1. Th4; B) 1. Th2 Da2 2. Tg2, etc.– Claim: no solution: 4.- Da1+ 5.Kb5 Dh1 6.Tfg3 Db1+ 7.Kc4:? etc. Reply: 7.Ka6 as in the by-variations.
	D11 – Claim : cooked: I. 2.Sc5+ Kb4 3.Kb6 S:e3 4.a6 Sd5 5.Kc6 Se7+ 6.Kb7 Kc5 7.a7 S:g6 8.a8D ± Reply: 8.- Se5!; - Claim: II. 2.Sc5+ Kb4 3.Se4: Reply: 3.- Lh8! ,Lb2 4.Sf2 Lg7/Lh8 5.Sd3+ Ka4 6.Kb6 Se3: 7.a6 Sc4+ 8.Kc6 Ka5 9.a7+
	D14 - Claims: L Pivovar, Szachy, 1970; II. Troitzky, Deutsche Schachzeitung, 1913; - Reply: The study D14 is not anticipated. Certainly not. As a matter of fact only the final 2 moves of the work D14 (6.f4! gxf3 7.Kf2) remind the crucial moment of the simple scheme devised by Troitzky (2.e4! fxe3 3.Ke2) in 1913, and by Pivovar (6.c4! bxc3 7.Kc2) in 1970. The study D14 is largely different from the works composed by Troitzky and Pivovar: it is more complex and more interesting; (there is a subtle play: the composer uses above all the pieces (and not only the pawns, like Troitzky and Pivovar) with masterly skill. The study D14 presents both a rich counterplay for Black (1... Lxc6) and a clever try (6.Lxc6?): on the contrary it is self-evident that in the works composed by Troitzky and then by Pivovar there is no counterplay at all. The study D14 shows a lot of unexpected brilliant moves both in the main line (3.Lc1+!, 4.Le4+!, 5.L:g2!!, 6.f4!) and also in the variations (1... Lxc6 2.La4!), differently from the work made by Troitzky (2.e4! is enough) and differently also from the composition by Pivovar (only 2 good moves: 5.b4!, 6.c4!). The composition D14 is the logical and original "extension" of the scheme conceived by Troitzky. Conclusion: no "chess endgame study" record!
	D19 – Reply: In the second move it looks like there is a dual, but there actually isn't one.
	D27 – Reply: D27 is correct.   5…. Df3 is not check. White can mate 6.Tg5#
	D30  – Claim: "In the solution, no reference is made, by means of the symbols X and X' respectively, to the thematic correspondence between the positions after 5.- Kg3 and 11.Kg3 (save the sacrifice of the WP on f6.– Duals (Inversion of moves): I. 7.Kh1 Shf3 8.f8D Se4 9.Db8+=; II. 13.Kh1 Shf3 14.h8D=; III. The solution should stop after 15.Db2 because 16.Df2: is an "only" move; – no solution: 1.Dd3! Td7 2.D:d7 Se4 3.D:c7+ Kh3 4.Dh2+ S:h2 5.Kg1 Kg3=, but: 5.- Sg5! 6.h7 (6.f7 S:f7 7.Kf2 S:g4+ 8.Kf3 Sf:h6 9.Ke4 Kh4 10.Kd5 Kg5 11.Ke6 Sf6 12.Ke5 Se8–+) 6.- S:h7 A) 7.g5 Sf3+ 8.Kf2 Sf:g5 9.f7 S:f7 10.h6 (10.f6 Sh6–+) 10.- Sf6–+; B) 7.f7 S:g4 8.h6 (8.f6 Sh6–+) 8.- Sgf6 9.Kf2 Kg4 10.Ke3 Kg5 11.Kd4 K:h6 12.Ke5 Kg7 13.Ke6 Sg5+–+; –anticipation: I. Y. Tjulin 2 HM Shakhmaty v SSSR 1937; II. Korolkov.V 1-2 Pr Problemista 1963; Reply to Protest: 1) The first sentence above should properly read: In the solution as printed in the booklet of entries, reference should have been made, by means of the symbols X and X' respectively, to the thematic correspondence between the positions after  5..Kg3 and 11..Kg3 (save for the WP sacrifice on f6), as required by the theme conditions.
2) The composer was aware of the minor duals by inversion of move order referred to in the protest and he alluded to these in his full analysis of his composition, but this was not included in the abbreviated version of the solution as submitted.  In the composer's view, the inversions are not serious, and certainly do not invalidate the study 
3) The objection that 'the solution should stop after 15.Db2 because 16. Df2 is an "only move" is not proper or logical.  White plays the only move to get out of check. Then it is necessary to assess the position after White escapes check. If the position was losing for White the study would be unsound. If it was winning for White, then the study would be a White-to-win study.  To present a valid solution showing a draw, the extra information given in the composer's solution has to be added.
4) The claim of 'no solution' after 5..Sg5 is incorrect, as is shown by the analysis of the following lines seemingly not considered by the objector: either   6 f7 Sxf7 7 h7 Sf3+ ( Sxg4 8 h8(D) Sxh8 9 h6=) 8 Kf2 Kxg4 9 f6 S3g5 10 h8(Q) Sxh8 11 f7 Sh7 12 h6 Sxf7 13 Ke3=; or ..6 h7 Sxh7 7 f7 Sxg4 8 h6 Sgf6 9 f8(D) Sxf8 10 h7 S8xh7 11 Kf2=
White's pawn is beyond the Troitzky line, and the White King has free access to the centre of the board, consequently can choose which corner to run to.  This therefore is a theoretical draw.  It is a well established convention that there is no need to annotate in detail lines leading to well-known theoretical positions after obvious and non-unique play. 4) In respect of the alleged anticipations by Tjulin and Korolkov respectively, neither of these show the theme of the competition. Therefore each fails to carry an essential element of the thematic content of D30.  It would be paradoxical, to say the least, if in a thematic competition a study that did not conform to the theme of the competition  were held to anticipate and hence invalidate one which did. 
To further amplify the case for the non-congruity of Tjulin and Korolkov:  There is no equivalent in either, for example, to the process by which White in D30 has first to promote the fP in order to open the a1-h8 diagonal, thereby allowing the pawn subsequently promoting on h8 to have free passage to b2.  Neither the Tjulin nor the Korolkov studies use this diagonal.
Also, both these earlier studies carry a heavy number of pawns, many of which serve only to obstruct critical lines.  In D30 there are only 6 pawns in total (5 White, 1 Black) with the BP disappearing in the introductory play [compare Tjulin 7 WPs and 6BPs, Korolkov 8WPs and 7BPs]. The smaller number of pawns in D30 allows for a D v 2Ss contest on an open board.  This is an essential feature of the composer's artistic intention.  In D30 the introductory play is more natural and game-like. It is also relevant that, despite the similarities of matrix in the final drawing pattern, there is an important difference between it and the earlier studies, since both these latter involve the move Dh8+ (b2 being occupied by a WP which plays no other part in the solution.) In D30 on the other hand the h file is blocked and the drawing idea involves Qb2.
The basis of the protest is therefore rejected.
	D31– Reply: The given "anticipation" employs a single presentation of the theme as opposed to a threefold one in D31.
	D36 – Reply: While this kind of dual promotion sacrifice with immediate capture is generally not considered a significant drawback, there is no dual in this endgame. 1.h8B+? Kf7! 2.a7 R:d3+ 3.Kc5 g2! (not 3…Rd8?) 4.a8Q g1Q+ 5.K:b4 Rd4+! 6.B:d4 Q:d4+ with an easy perpetual check.
	D39 – Protest: duals I. 2.Ke3 Ke7 (2...Kd6 3.Ke4 Kd7 4.Ke5) 3.d6+ K:d6 4.Ke4+; II. 2.Ke4 Kd6 3.Kf3 Kd7 4.Ke3 Ke7 5.d6+ K:d6+ 6.Ke4 Ke6 7.d5±;  III. 6.K:c4 Kd6 7.Kd4 Kd7 (7...Kd6 8.c3/Ke4) 8.K:c3+ IV. 8.Kc5+; V. 5...Kd7, like 6.K:c3, 6.K:c4, 6.Kc5, 6.Ke5, etc. Reply: I. and II. are only prolongations of the main variation (with coming back to it). III., IV., V. are not important because the positions are theoretically clear.
	D42 – Reply: Problem is not cooked but has a dual in the third move: 3.Tf1 which leads to the better position for white but without a clear way to win as in the original solution. 
	D43 Author restates solution as follows: (X) 1.Ka8?? Txb7 -+; 1.h7! Txh7 2.e7 Thxe7(X') (2.Ka8? Th8 3.b8S++ (3.b8D,T,L?-+) Ka5 4.Lb7 Tc3-+) 3.Ka8! Txb7 4.Lxb7+ Ka5 (4. ... Txb7 = stalemate) 5.Kb8! (5.Ka7? Td7-+;   5.Lc6? Tg7 6.Kb8 Ka6 -+, 6.Lxe4 Ka6 7.Kb8 Tg8 8.Kc7 Te8 9.Lb7+ Ka7 -+) 5. ... Td7 6.Lxe4 Ka6 7.Lf5=  5. ...  Te5 6.Ka8! (5.Ka7 Te8 6.Lc6 Te7+ 7.Ka8 Tg7 8.Ld5 Td7 9.Lxe4 Ka6 10.Kb8 Td8+ 11.Kc7 Te8 12.Lb7 Ka7 -+) 6. ...   Te6 7.Kb8 (7.Ka7 Te8 8.Lc6 Te7+ 9.Ka8 Tg7 10.Ld5 Td7 11.Lxe4 Ka6-+ ;   7.Ld5 Te7 8.Kb8 Ka6-+ ) 7. ... Te7! 8.Kc8! (8.Lc6,d5 Ka6-+; 8.Ka7 Te8-+;   8.Ka8 Td7 9.Lxe4 Ka6 -+) 8. ... Te5 9.Kb8  (9.Kc7 Tc5-  -+;  9.Kd7 Tc5 10.Lxe4 Tc3 11.Ld5 Txe3 12.Kc7 Ka6 13.Kb8 Te8+ 14.Kc7 Ka7 -+) 9. ...   Te7! 8.Kc8! = (repeating position) (3. .... Te8 4.b8L+!! Txc8=;  4.b8D? Txc8-+;    4.b8S++? Ka5  5.Lb7 Tc3-+). Author is aware that there are some similarities with cited Iespersen study, but there are so much differencies in its content and play that he believes that his study has enough originality and hopes that it will be treated further in the process of evaluation to final judgement. 
	D44 – Reply: Due to the fact that the promoted pawn does not continue to play, but it eliminates the black instantly, this isn't a dual at all. If the preceding is looked upon as a similarity of the final position and not as a different way of coming to that position, then, only rarely one can find no preceding in studies that are composed lately. All mate and pat figures as well as theoretical remis and gained positions are worked upon and very well-known long time ago.
	D46 – Reply: Problem of Kalandadze is totally incorrect: 2.Kc7/Kc6, 5.Kf7/Kf8, 6.Kg7/Kg8, 7.Kh7/Kh8. The idea in D46 is shown without duals what cannot be shown with only 6 pieces. The problem in which the main idea is shown incorrectly cannot be anticipation for the correct one.
The second part of the remark in which it stays that problem has no solution obviously doesn't belong to D46. It seems to be a part of remarks to problem D52.
	D47 – Reply: The moves  10.Ld6 / Lh6 + are not duals.  They prolong the solution, postpone uselessly the Queen's capture  10.S:b7.   In fact the study  is finished after 9.Sc5+ .
	D48 – Protest: Side variation dual 1...Ke4 2.Sd6+ Kd5 3. S:c4/e4+. Reply: It is a minor (not thematical) variation, dual is of no importance.
	D58 – Reply: (a). The claim for no solution after 3...Lxe4 is not correct. White wins as follows:   4.Txh3 Lg6 5.Txh4 Lxd3 6.Th3 Ld6 7.Txd3 Le5 8.Tf3! h4 9.Tf5!! Lc7 10.Tg5 Ke8 11.Kg7 h3 12.Tg1! h2 13.Te1+ Kd7 14.Kxf7 wins
(b).The claim I for dual 10.e6 is correct, but this is insignificant because the study in fact ends after 9.Txg2.
(c). The claim II for dual 7.Sf2 is not correct, because after 6...Lb6 7.Sf2?  black  draws as follows: 7...Lc7 8.Sxh3 Le4 9.Sg5 Lxe5! 10.Tf2 (the only move) Lg6 11.Sh7+ Lxh7 12.Kxh7 h3! draws
	D62– Reply: The protest is specifying cook(???) 1.Sd2: .....  5.Dc4=  and 4. ... c3+ ... 7.e6+- (???). It is not so hard to show that there is an error in protest analyses: 1.Sd2:? ed2 2.Kd2: Kb2 3.Dh3 c4 4.De6: a1=D 5.Dc4: and here was set "=" sign for position in protest, but there is simple wining path for Black: 5. ... Dc1+ 6.Kd3 Dd1 7.Ke3 Dc2:! 8.Db5 b3+- ; black is in winning position; there is no even minute chance for white for draw; and  there is another brang  also mentioned within protest which is in error too: 4. ... c3+  5. Kd3 a1=D 6.Db3+ Kc1 7.e6 (??? here is set wining sign +- for White in protest analyses, but truth is that Black should win simply with: 7. .. Db2(b1) 8.D~ Dc2:+  and wins (8.Db2(b1):  Kb2(b1): -+.So please accept that protest about cook in study D62 is unfounded and incorrect!. There is also dual protest about same study: 10.Kd1 Kb2=. Maybe the presentation of this complex study by its author and cooperators was not done in the best option, because of that we are sending you improved best line of this pat-type study as follows (most of it is the same as in original entry): 1.Sa3! ba3 2.Dh1+ Kb2 3.Da1+!! Ka1: 4.c4 Lc3(c1) (4. ... Kb2(b1)? pat!) 5.Kc2 Lb2 6.Kb3! Le5: (6.... Kb1 pat!) 7.Kc2 Lb2 8.e5!= and White has forever pat defence e.g. 8. .. Le5: 9.Kc1 Ld4(f6,g7,h8) 10.Kc2 Lb2 11.Kb3! Lc3(c1) 12.Kc2 Ld2 13.Kd1= (13.Kd3??); Black cant outbalance the White king from pat-network. 
	D65 – Reply: The made claim of "dual" 15.Lf5+ should be seen in broader view. In the whole study the main question is how to control black threat to promote his Pe2. Many subvariations without thematical interest is not shown in the solution, nor all tries and their refutations. Now the claim is really a small thing, many subvariations with more interest are not discussed in the solution at all. After 14.-Sxc2 white has two principal continuations, he can either take the S (15.Lxc2? is a try refuted by 15.-Le3+!) or take the menacing black pawn by 15.Kxe2! winning instantly because a8D is unstoppable. Now the indicated in-between check 15.Lf5+ does not change this general picture at all, it only postpones the only correct  solution to play Kxe2 and a8D, unnecessarily. This kind of slower, but identical ways of winning are not generally considered to consist of any blemish concerning the correctness of a study. The fact that the much weaker move 15.Lf5+ does lose the bishop but white still wins is of no interest, the general way how white wins is already shown. However, because the trick move 15.-Le3+! is possible in other variations as well, the solution in this line could be shortened one move without losing any inhalt having some importance. The new  (amended) end of line B could be Written as follows: 13.Th3+! (13.Tg8+? Sg4 14.Txg4+ Kxg4 15.Kf2 Le3+!=) 13.-Kxh3 14. Kf2 wins, e.g 14.-Sxc2 15.Kxe2.
	D69 – Reply: is not incorrect, 8.- Sd7 9.Df7: Sge5 10.Db3 b5 11.Db5: b6 12.Le5:+ and win, but  not 12.Kg7?; 11. - Sc6 12.Lc7 Sdb8 (12.- Scb8 13.Da4+ Sa6 14.Dd3:+) 13.Db3:+- (13.- Sa6 14.De3+ Ka8 15.Ld6+. 
	D70  – Reply: is incorrect! 1.f7?! is a try: 1.f7?! Bb8! A) 2.Be5 Bxe5 (not 2…d6?) 3.Sc7 Ka4! 4.d4 Bxd4 5.Se6! Be5! 6.Sc5+ (6.f8Q Rxf8 7.Sxf8 h3 8.Sxd7 Bd6) 6...Kb5 7.Sd3 Rxf7 8.Sxe5 Rf8 9.Sxd7 Kc6 10.Sxf8 Kxb7 11.Sd7 h3 12.Sc5+ Kxb6 13.Se4 h2 14.Sf2 Kc5 15.Kb3 Kd4 16.Kb4 Ke5 17.Kc5 Kf4 18.d4 Kg3 19.Sh1+ Kg2; B) 2.f8Q Rxf8 3.Bxf8 h3 4.Bd6 Bxd6 5.Sc7 h2 6.b8Q h1Q 7.Qa7 (7.Qg8 Qc1! 8.Qd5+ Bc5=) 7...Bxc7 8.bxc7 Qc1! 9.Kb3 Qd1+ 10.Kc4 Qc1+ 11.Kd5 Qc6+ 12.Kd4 Qf6+ 13.Ke4 Qf4+ 14.Kd5 Qf7+ 15.Kd6 Qe6+ 16.Kc5 Qe7+ 17.Kc4 Qe6+ 18.Kd4 Qxg4+=.
	D73 – Claim: duals: 13.Kc2 & 14.Kb2; Reply: This remark is superfluous, because this negligible "dual" is already mentioned in the original text.
	D77 – Reply: The study by Nadareishvili ends like D77 with a selfblock, but otherwise the basic ideas of the two studies are totally different.
 1) The key moves are different - in D77 the white blacksquared bishop does not have direct access to the diagonal a3-f8. The key move in D77 forces black to capture on h4 by means of mate threats. Thereby the white bishop gains access to a3-f8 to free the black a-pawn - in Nadareishvili's problem the white blacksquared bishop must block the black b-pawn to force the h-pawn to promotion and capture 
 2) Pawns- in D77 the black a-pawn has triple white pawns in front of it and must take the place of the one at a2; - in Nadareishvili's problem there are no white pawns - the pawn at d2 in Nadareishvili's problem is superfluous, not needed for the problem
 3) and finally there are many duals in Nadareishvili's problem. There are five winning bishop moves and one winning king's move for white's seventh move.
	D80 – Reply: The claimed anticipation by Maksimovskih 1974 Ka8/Ka6 study is a relatively weak claim as explained below. Similar way one could claim e.g. all mate studies with blocking black pieces in the mate position to be anticipated. The D80 and the indicated Ka8Ka6 study differs in many ways how the actual play goes, having only as the main common feature the stalemated bK and black Siegfried. In otb play these  features are rather seldom giving the misleading idea that all studies having these elements are automatically anticipated. Another common feature in both studies is that all the numerous pieces, both white and black, have some active role during the solution. But this is just the standard ideal form, generally not considered to be an element in  anticipation. D80 has a fourteen halfmoves long introduction play showing  a quiet key move into the black KT battery, White makes an underpromotion and black counters this with a  series of sacrifices, including a D sacrifice instead of rook sacrifice in the "black try" (= side variation). The introduction play ends in a situation where bK is stalemated making the remaining black piece ( a rook versus a D operating like a L in the Ka8Ka6 study) immune against captures ("a Siegfried"). The introduction play of  the Ka8Ka6 study has in comparison just a normal key and only four halfmoves totally (1.b7 Dc6 2.Lxd5 Dxd5 position X) , and the bK being all the time stalemated. The thematical phase of D80 includes  five thematical sacrifices in the main line and three in the sideline 9.-Td4. Both lines include a thematical try having both three thematical sacrifices, so totally D80 shows 5+3+3+3=14 thematical sacrifices, the new record. Ka8Ka6 shows only four sacrifices in its single main line (3.Dh1 Dxh1 4.Sf3 Dxf3 5.Se4 Dxe4 6.d5 Dxd5 X') and also note that the sacrifice of De1 is "semithematic", De1 does not prevent any white plan as such. The subsequent sacrifices of rooks are not thematical at all. In contrast in D80 the rooks are also sacrificed (twice) in a thematical form. Note also that in D80 the bK stalemate position is released (and recreated) during the thematical play while in  Ka8Ka6 the bK is stalemated all the way. And on top of all that Ka8Ka6 has it's theme play solely on the long diagonal while D80 has vertical play on two different files, so in conclusion we have two similar studies in narrow sense, which are relatively dissimilar in a closer look, both in theme inhalt and in it's technical realisation, not to mention totally different, both in quality and length, introduction phases.
	D81– Claims: dual 10.Sd4 Ld5; Reply: 10.- f3!
	D84 – Reply: I)  6. Sf6+ (after 4. - Kh6) is not a dual  6. Sf6+  Kh6,  7. Dh1+ Dh5,  8. Sg4#  delays the mate by one move.  II) There is no dual in the main variant. After 3.  -  Kg7,  4. h6+  Kxh6,  5. Td8  black does not play 5. - Dd5, but 5. - Dxe5,  6. fxe5 Kg5  with even play.

	E17 – Reply: Anticipations I and II have similar pattern of Bristol but E17 includes the third thematic element (mutual capturing of pawns) which is the essential element of the problem. Anticipation III shows only bi-colour Bristol. Problems I, II and III cannot be anticipations for more complex problem in which Bristol is only one element.
	E21 – Reply: E21 is not only a Letztform (final version) regarding the Bishop manoeuvres but unprecedentedly combines it with mutual Pawn captures.
	E40 – Reply: The anticipation is partial. In addition, the cited problem uses zeroposition for twinning, which is inferior to the sound 2 solutions of E40.
	E48 – Claim: anticipation:  A.Vassilenko, 1-2 Pr, Ural Problemist 2000; Reply: E48 is different from Vassilenko's quoted problem in many ways.
	E52 – Reply: The problem is not anticipated by A.Vassilenko and can compete in WCCT. The reason. The scheme is completely different. There is the same strategy (except the move of mate in a twin: in E52 it's important that the Pf2 plays in both solutions, so we decided for a final mate by the Pf2). But "same strategy" doesn't mean anticipation.
	E89– Reply: is totally different than "anticipations" I, II and III. E89 shows the longest possible Bristol (Lh8 Lg7 and La1 Lb2), and Grimshaw on e6 as the additional theme. The problem which first showed bi-colour Bristol cannot be anticipation for all further in which the bi-color Bristol is only a part of  the thematic presentation. By this logic problem II (Garai, 1989) is anticipation for problem III (Nagnibida, 1998) and problem I (Zeltonozko, 2000).

	F59 – Reply: After 1.Td7:! bc5 does not prevent the threat! Therefore there is no dual.
	F72 – Reply: The claim of Lh7 being a promoted bishop is ungrounded as Lf1 is missing. This kind of replacement is accepted in the Codex as legal and fully valid in orthodox tournaments like WCCT.
	F78 – Reply: This composition uses different sacrificial material (knights instead of queen) with battery thematic moves, which interchange their function as 2nd and 3rd moves.
	
	G38 – Protest: Anticipation L. Lindner, Tungsram 1978, 2nd Hon. Men. Reply: The idea of threemover G38 is doubled if compared with the twomover, and what is more, there are some additional nuances like 3.Se7# – 3.Sh6# etc. It is allowed to use similar mechanism in different sort of compositions.