From page 138 of Assiac's The Pleasures of Chess:
Botvinnik's other reprimand, then, for that particular Jury was caused by their award of Third Prize to Z. Brinov for this study, the World Champion's opinion being that here is a case of more or less innocent plagiarism. A serious reproach, no doubt; the more so when coming from so exalted a judge. So, before setting outselves up as supreme court, it would seem to be only fair first to have a glance at the evidence produced by the defendant. Here then is Brinov's own solution for his study. White to move and win:[FEN "nk6/1p6/P7/8/1P4R1/8/p1K1p3/5B2 w - - 0 1"][Event "XVI Soviet Problem Competition"][White "Z. Brinov"]1. Rg8+ Ka7 2. axb7 Kxb7 3. Rg1 e1=N+ 4. Kb2 a1=Q+ 5. Kxa1 Nc2+ 6. Kb2 Nxb4 7. Bg2+ Kb8 8. Kc3 Na6 9. Rb1+Botvinnik's case again Brinov (and the Jury which awarded him a prize) rests on the World Champion's opinion that Brinov's study, is too similar to this famous old study by Réti (1928), and that the actual mating line is too much influenced by another well-known study, composed by G. Zachodjakin and first published in 1931 (i.e. eighteen years before Brinov's prize-winner). But let us look at Réti's adjoining classic first.
[FEN "8/8/8/8/5p2/R6B/1K2p3/3k4 w - - 0 1"][White "Réti"]1. Rd3+ Ke1 2. Rf3 Kd2 3. Bf1[Note that there a dual line with 1.Bg4 (found by Chéron in 1955, though first published a few years after that), which was fixed via the brutal method of moving the wRa3 to g3 to force 1. Rd3+].
Here, finally, so as to get our evidence complete, is Zachodjakin's earlier study. Here too, it is a case of 'White to move and win', and the author's solution is this:[FEN "4n2k/8/5nP1/7P/8/4K3/3R4/8 w - - 0 1"][White "Zachodjakin"]1. h6 Ng4+ 2. Kf4 Nxh6 3. Kg5 Ng8 4. Rh2+ Kg7 5. Rh7+ Kf8 6. Rf7#I wonder about the majority opinion of readers if they had to pass judgment on this case as Supreme Court. My own opinion is that the similarity with Réti's famous 'classic' [on page 218 of The Delights of Chess, upon reporting Chéron's cook and fix, the same Assiac calls it one of Réti's most celebrated studies, "considered one of the gems of chess literature for almost exactly thirty-five years... and hundreds of thousands or quite likely millions of readers must have enjoyed the author's brilliant solution"] is too slight to matter, but I would certainly agree that, so far as Zachodjakin's piece is concerned, the likeness is indeed remarkable.
