Shakmaty Bereolos - The Official Chess Site of Peter Bereolos

Games versus GMs

Welcome to my chess page. This is mostly random thoughts and analysis in the form of a chess diary with other sections of the site slowly developing. A lot of the content will come from my own experience. There are two reasons for this. One, so I can use this site as a self-improvement tool. Two, so you the readers will have content that is not found on other chess sites. Follow the link to the left to reach my annotated games against grandmasters. Send me comments and ideas

If you link to this site, please point to www.bereolos.net so that your link will be correct no matter where I host the site.

Pete

Corrections to Basic Chess Endings
Links
Archives

9/15/19-Wojtkiewicz-Bereolos, 2006 Chicago Open

I've added my game versus Aleks Wojtkiewicz from the 2006 Chicago Open to the GM games section. I played a dubious opening variation in this one and while I fought for a long time, I never managed to overcome this bad start.


9/11/19 - BCE-111a, Troitsky 1906

I don't have many knight endings in the BCE corrections section, so I thought I'd remedy that. This week's example is fairly esoteric, with 2 knight battling 3 connected passed pawns. The winning idea for the side with the knights is to blockade the pawns, capture 2 of them, then win the ending of 2 knights versus a pawn. While this can theoretically be done, in practice it is difficult and can often run up against the 50-move rule.

Today's BCE position is drawn only because of the 50-move rule, which may cause some to question if it is really a correction. However, if we ignore the 50-move rule, then on the 2nd move both sides go wrong from an objective evaluation, so the position does merit inclusion. We saw this conflict between the tablebase evaluation and the 50-move rule in the game Fawzy-Chaparinov which was the very first post of my Olympiad/Yearbook 128 series. Things are a bit less clear in this ending because of the multiple pawns which reset the 50 move count every time one moves or is captured. However, I think I demonstrate in the correction link that it applies here too.

Of course, it doesn't take long for the name Troitsky to appear when the topic is 2 knights versus pawns. Fine doesn't give a citation for this position, but Troitsky analyzed it in an article in the June 1906 edition of Deutsch Schachzeitung. Fine follows Troitsky's analysis for quite a few moves before going his own way.

Of course Troitsky was not worried about the constraints of the 50 move rule, but he predated Fine on getting the objective analysis wrong on move two. 1.Kf4 e5+ Troitsky also looks at 1...c5 2.Ne4+ Ke7! 3.Kg5 which Black would hold with the 50-move rule and 1...d5? 2.Ne5! Ke7 when 3.Nxc6+ is a win for White, instead Troitsky continued (3.Na4? when Kd6! is again drawn with the 50-move rule) ] 2.Kg4?! Ke6?! Troitsky also considers 2...d5! 3.Ng5 e4 4.Kf4 Ke7?! (4...e3! is the only move that is objectively drawing, but the text is still a draw in 50-move rule space) 5.Ke5 e3? Strangely enough, this push, which was the saving move on the previous move when it could be captured is a losing move here. 6.Ne6 e2 7.Nxe2 c5 8.Kxd5! (Troitsky also indicates 8.Nxc5?! which allows 8...d4! 9.Nd3 (!) which is mate in 58, so the 50-move rule would again come into play) 8...c4 and although the pawn has crossed the Troitsky line, White has mate in 49. One must remember that the Troitsky line indicates the line for any king position. There are many cases where the pawn is over the line, but the defender is still lost as is the case here beginning with 9.Nc3!] 3.Ng5+ Kf6! 4.Nce4+ Ke7! 5.Kf5 Kd7? Fine's 5...d5! is the only move to hold (using the 50-move rule) It is a bit odd that Troitsky did not consider that move especially since he looked at it on earlier moves. The only alternative he gives here is 5...c5? 6.Nf6 c4 7.Nge4 +-6.Nf7 d5 7.Nc5+ Black loses his e-pawn and will be left with a pawn on c6 or d5 in the subsequent 2 knight versus pawn ending, both of which are behind the Troitsky line and the second Troitsky line, so White wins.

This ending is very rare in practice. I only found a dozen examples of 2 knights versus 3 connected passed pawns in the database. In two of those, the pawns were far advanced and beat the knights. In another, one of the knights was immediately captured. Of the other 9, the side with the knights won twice, once when the defending king was already in a mating net when the ending started and once using the technique described earlier of blockading the pawns and eventually winning the 2N vs. P ending. Even in that game the defender had multiple chances to draw both objectively and by reaching the 50 move rule. Since I ran through variations like that in the BCE link, I'll skip repeating that kind of tedious analysis here.


9/7/19 - Youssef-Bereolos, 1983 Region V Junior Invitational

Back in my junior days, the USCF was divided into regions. I don't really find much evidence that these regions still exist for the modern US Chess. Region V consisted of Indiana, Michigan, Ohio, and Kentucky. Every year the top 2 juniors from each of these states was invited to a Scheveningen style round robin where each player would face all the players outside of his state. The 1983 edition in Ann Arbor, Michigan was a big success for Indiana as Billy Colias and I each defeated future GM Ben Finegold and all of our other opponents for a shared first with 6-0 scores.

In the second round, I had Black against Michigan's Issa Youssef. Here is another pawn ending where the engines reveal flaws. I had found the saving draw for White, but my analysis did not uncover the fact that the ending was a win for Black. After 33...Kg8

White has an extra exchange, but is lost because of the passed e-pawn and ideas of ...Nf3+ or ...Nd3. 34.Qf4 probably the best practical chance, 34.Qd8+ (34.Qe6+ Kg7 35.Qe7+ Kh6 36.Qf8+ Kh5 just activates the Black king) 34...Kg7 35.Qxa5 leaves the White king too exposed 35...Qe3+ 36.Kg2 (36.Kh1 Nd3 37.Qc3+ Kh6 and White can't do anything about the threat of ...Qf3+ followed by ...Qf2+) 36...Nd3 37.Qc3+ Kh6 38.Kh3 trying to sidestep ...Qf2+ 38...Qe6+ 39.Kg2 Qe4+ 40.Kg1 (40.Kh3 Nf2#) 40...Qe3+ 41.Kg2 Qf2+ 34...Nf3+ 35.Kf2 Qxf4! 36.gxf4 Nxe1! 37.Kxe1

37...Kf7? Black needs to fix the White queenside pawn structure giving himself two spare tempi in the form of b6 and b5 37...a4! 38.Kxe2 Kf7 39.Kd3 Ke6 40.Ke4 (Running to the queenside is too slow 40.Kc4 Kf5 41.Kb4 Kxf4 42.Kxa4 g5 43.b4 g4 44.Kb3 h5 45.a4 h4 46.a5 g3 47.hxg3+ hxg3 48.b5 g2 49.a6 bxa6 50.bxa6 g1Q) 40...Kf6 41.Ke3 Kf5 42.Kf3 h6 43.h3 (43.Kg3 Ke4 44.Kg4 Ke3 45.Kg3 h5 and White gets outflanked) 43...g5 44.fxg5 Kxg5 45.Kg3 b6! 46.Kf3 Kf5 47.Ke3 Ke5 White has to pick a direction, but he loses the race no matter which side he goes to 48.Kf3 (48.Kd3 Kf4) 48...Kd4 49.Kg4 (White has only lost further ground after 49.Ke2 Ke4) 49...Kc4 50.Kh5 Kb3! 51.Kxh6 Kxb2! 52.h4 Kxa3! 53.h5 Kb3 the point. Black will queen first and control h8. 38.Kxe2? White needs to stop ...a4 with 38.b3 or 38.a4 38...Ke6? 39.Ke3? Kd5? missing the last chance for 39...a4! 40.b3! a4 41.bxa4! Kc4 42.a5! 42.Ke4? Kb3! and Black wins in similar fashion to the game lines. 42...Kb5 42...Kb3 43.Kd4! Kxa3 44.Kc5! Ka4 45.Kb6! Kb4 46.Kxb7 Kxa5! is a worse version of the next note from Black's perspective, but still a draw.

43.Ke4? White miscalculates the ensuing race. Instead, he should have drawn by counterattacking the queenside 43.Kd4! Kxa5 44.Kc5! Ka4 45.Kb6! Kxa3 46.Kxb7! Kb4 47.Kc6 Kc4 48.Kd6 Kd4 49.Ke6 Ke4 50.Kf6! Kxf4 51.Kg7! h5 52.Kxg6! h4 53.Kh5! h3 54.Kh4! 43...Kxa5! 44.f5 It is too late for 44.Kd5 as White has to spend an extra move to capture the b-pawn. 44...Ka4! 45.Kc5 Kxa3! 46.Kb6 Kb4 47.Kxb7 Kc5 48.Kc7 Kd5 49.Kd7 Ke4! 50.Ke6 Kxf4! 51.Kf6 g5 52.Kg7 h5! 53.Kg6 h4 54.Kh5 h3 55.Kg6 g4 56.Kf6 g3 44...gxf5+! 45.Kxf5 Ka4 46.Kg5 Kxa3 47.Kh6 b5! 48.Kxh7 b4! 49.h4 b3! 50.h5 b2! 51.h6 b1Q+! 52.Kh8 Qb8+ 53.Kg7 Qc7+ 54.Kg8 Qd8+ 55.Kh7 Qf6 0-1

Lessons from this ending: 1. Be alert for chances to gain extra tempi in a pawn ending (37...a4!). 2. Capturing is not mandatory (38. Kxe2?) 3. All variations in a pawn ending must be calculated (43. Kd4!).


9/4/19 - BCE-70, Lasker and Reichhelm, 1901

Lasker also made an impression in the world of chess studies. This week's BCE position is a classic example of corresponding squares. There seem to be multiple versions of this study. The van der Heijden database gives 3 variants. That was the starting point of my research into the postion, where I found some discrepancies. The original appears to come from Lasker's column in the Manchester Evening News where the April 10, 1901 edition gives the following position Composed by E. Lasker

Later that same year, Lasker toured the US. This seems to be the point where Gustav Reichhelm enters the picture. The position in BCE-70 is widely referenced as Lasker and Reichhelm from the Chicago Tribune. The Encylopedia of Chess Endings even attributes it entirely to Reichhelm. However, in the May 26, 1901 edition of the Tribune, it is the following position that appears.

This is the BCE position except the f-pawns are on f5 and f6 instead of f4 and f5. The text accompanying the position states During the champion's half hour visit at the Chicago Chess and Checker club last Tuesday he showed the following ending, his own composition, with a little alteration by G. Reichhelm to increase the difficulty, consisting of placing white's K at [a1] instead of [a3] and black's K at [a7] instead of [a8].

So where does the BCE position come from? It appears with the title Lasker's Great End-Game in the June 22, 1901 edition of The Literary Digest. As the name implies that is a compendium of information from different sources. However, they don't cite exactly where they pulled the study from, so maybe there is yet another source with this variant.

Finally, the HvdHDB gives one more version attributed only to The Literary Digest 1901 with no date given. Here, the kings are back in the position of the original study, but the f-pawns have shifted. However, I was unable to locate this position in The Literary Digest or elsewhere.

Amazingly, none of these subtle changes of king and pawn positions ends up impacting the assessment. They are all White to play and win.


8/28/19 - BCE-590, Shipley-Lasker, Philadelphia 1902

This week's BCE example is another Lasker example, this time from an exhibition game against Walter Penn Shipley. Looking at the comments on chessgames.com, it seems that this may have been a one-on-one encounter although ChessBase notes it as a simultaneous game. It is hard to gauge Shipley's strength. In my database I see wins over Steinitz, Gunsberg, Lasker and Janowski, as well as a draw versus Capablaca. However, most of these are marked as from simuls, exhibitions, or casual games. Probably Sonas' ranking on Shipley at #12 in the world in 1901 is optimistic, but he was clearly no pushover. After 35.Qg8 Lasker was a pawn up, but his king was a bit open. Here, he walked into a tactical shot

35...Ke5?Better was 35...Qf7 offering to trade queens, protecting c4, and increasing the pressure on f2 36.Bf4+! Rxf4 the only move, 36...Kxf4? 37.Qg3# while 36...Kf6 37.Rh2 planning Rh6+ should be a winning attack37.Rg5+ Qxg5 38.Qxg5+ Rf5 Black has close to level material compensation with a rook, bishop, and pawn for the queen. He also has pressure on f2 as well as a compact formation where he can protect all of his pawns. Based on all of that, I think it is very Laskeresque that he would have declined a draw offer here or on the following moves as White begins to play aimlessly. 39.Qg7+ Kd5 40.Qg8+ Kc5 41.b3 cxb3 42.axb3 d5 43.Qa8 a5 44.c4 Kd4 45.cxd5 Rxd5 46.Qc6 Rc5 47.Qa4+ Kd3 48.Qa1 The starting position of BCE-590, Black has made enormous progress, but White should still be able to make a draw. 48...Rc2 49.Qb1 Kc3 50.Qa1+ Rb2 51.Qc1+ Kxb3 52.Qd1+ Kb4 53.Qg4 Bxf2+ 54.Kd1 Bd4 55.Qxe4 c5 56.Qe1+ Ka4 57.Kc1 Rf2 58.Qd1+ Ka3 59.Qd3+ Kb4 60.Qa6 a4 61.Qb6+ Ka3 62.Qb5 Rb2 63.Qa6 Be3+ 64.Kd1 Rd2+ 65.Ke1! Rd4 66.Qe6? 66.Qb5 is the subject of the BCE correction, now the Black king gets free while the White king is kept at bay. 66...Bd2+! 67.Kd1 Kb2! 68.Qb6+ Bb4+! 69.Ke2 a3 0-1


8/21/19 - BCE-516, Em. Lasker-Ed. Lasker, New York 1924

As I teased last week, I'm going begin a series of BCE positions featuring the second World Champion, Emanuel Lasker. Lasker isn't particularly renowned for his endgames, but his career was so long that he played numerous instructive ones. Today's example is celebrated for its finale, a rare case where a lone knight holds off a rook and pawn. That position is covered correctly by Fine in BCE-506, but today's position comes several moves before that.

Although the starting position does not have many pieces, it is very tricky with many subtleties. One of the greatest analysts of all time, Garry Kasparov, analyzed this endgame in Part 1 of his Great Predecessors series, using a strong engine circa 2003 and still got a lot wrong. I suspect he might have been too deferential to the computer at that point in time. With today's faster, stronger engines, supplemented by tablebases, many more truths can be revealed.

Lasker reigned as World Champion from when he beat Steinitz in 1894 until he lost a one-sided match to Capablanca in 1921 (+4 =10), still a record for longevity. As Lasker was over 50 when he lost the title, it might have been thought that age had finally caught up with him. However, dominant performances in strong tournaments at Maehrisch-Ostrau in 1923 (10.5/13) and New York 1924 (16/20 a point and a half clear of Capablanca showed that he was still a force to be reckoned with. He had strong results well into his 60s, but never got another shot at the title. Today's game against his namesake, Edward Lasker, was one of the few games he didn't win in the New York supertournament. After 69...Rxh7 Black has an extra exchange, but White has compensation with his connected passed pawns.

70.Kf3 Kb7 71.g4?Analysis of this ending has focused on move 72, but it appears that this move gives away the draw. 71.f5 Kc6 72.Nf4 a5 73.bxa5! b4 74.Nd3 b3 75.Ke4 Ra7 (75...Kb5 76.a6 Kxa6 77.Nc5+) 76.g4 Rxa5 77.Kd4 and White will reach his defensive position. 71...Kc6 72.Ke4 The starting position of BCE-516. This position is also where Kasparov begins his analysis. 72...Rh8 72...Rd7 in the main BCE line 73.Ne3 Re8+ In presenting the game variation, Fine skips over this check and the one on the next move and just gives the immediate 73...a5 but this misses a critical moment 74.Kd4 Rd8+ 75.Ke4? Kasparov gives this move an exclam stating that if 75.Kc3! then 75...Rd6 is unpleasant. However, this was the road to the draw. The following variation shows some nice tricks with the knight 76.f5 Kd7 77.g5 Ke7 78.Ng4 Rd5 79.g6 Rxf5 80.g7! Rg5! 81.Nh6! Rxg7 82.Nf5+! Kf6 83.Nxg7! Kxg7! with a drawn pawn ending 84.Kd4 Kf6 85.Kc5 Ke6 86.Kb6 Kd6 87.Kxa6 Kc7 88.Kxb5 Kb7!= After the text, the position is the same as it would have been after 72...Rd7 73. Ne3 except the Black rook is on d8 instead of d7, but this isn't enough to change the assessment of the position as a Black win. 75...a5! 76.bxa5 b4 77.a6 Kc5! 78.a7 b3? 78...Ra8! is the only winning move. Kasparov's line has it right up until the last move 79.f5 Rxa7! 80.Nd1 Re7+ 81.Kf3 Rf7 82.Nb2 Kd5 83.Kf4 b3? allows White to draw (83...Rh7 is one way to win, for example 84.g5 Rh2 85.Nd1 Rh4+ 86.Kg3 Rd4 87.Nb2 Ke5 88.f6 Kf5 89.f7 Rd8 90.Kf3 Kg6 91.Ke3 Kxf7) 84.Ke3! heading towards the queenside as in the game. If Black tries to cut this off, either the White king becomes active or his pawns can advance. For example, 84...Kc5 85.Ke4! Re7+ 86.Kd3! Kb4 87.f6= 79.Nd1! Ra8 80.g5 Rxa7 81.g6! Rd7 Kasparov's line beginning with 81...Kd6 should also be a draw similar to the game 82.Kd3 (instead of Kasparov's 82.Kf5?) 82...Rc7 83.f5 Ke7 84.Nb2! Kf6 85.Na4! Kxf5 86.g7! 82.Nb2! Rd2 83.Kf3 Rd8 84.Ke4 Kasparov gives a blunder-filled line here with 84.f5? Kd6 85.Kf4 Rc8? 86.Nd1? Rc4+? 87.Kg5? (87.Ke3!=) 87...Rc1 88.Nb2 Rc2 89.Nd1 Ke5? and he stops here saying there is no obvious draw. White does have a narrow path with 90.Ne3! b2 (9090...Rc7 91.f6! b2 92.g7) 91.g7! b1Q 92.Ng4+! with a draw (but not 92.g8Q? Qg1+! 93.Ng4+ Qxg4+! 94.Kxg4 Rg2+!) ] 84...Rd2 Kasparov suggests that Black was still winning here, but his variation has a serious hole 84...Kb4 85.f5 Kc3 86.Na4+ Kc2? (Black has to repeat the position with 86...Kb4!) 87.g7! (instead of Kasparov's 87.f6?) and it is White who wins 87...Ra8 88.Ke3 and White will queen 85.Kf3 Rd8 86.Ke4 Kd6 87.Kd4 Rc8 88.g7 Ke6 89.g8Q+ Rxg8! 90.Kc4 Rg3 91.Na4 Kf5 92.Kb4 Kxf4 Reaching BCE-506, although Fine presents it with the colors reversed 93.Nb2 Ke4 94.Na4 Kd4 95.Nb2! Rf3 96.Na4! Re3 97.Nb2! Ke4 98.Na4 Kf3 99.Ka3! Ke4 100.Kb4 Kd4 101.Nb2! Rh3 102.Na4! Kd3 103.Kxb3! Kd4+ 1/2-1/2


8/19/19 - Neiksans-Paiva, 2018 Batumi Olympiad

Today's post concludes my Olympiad/Yearbook 128 series as I have worked my way through all of the surveys. I think this was an interesting way to look at a variety of opening ideas and see how they were implemented in practice. It was a mixed bag as some of the surveys did not see relavent games during the Olympiad. Still, I think the majority had theoretical impact that was demonstrated in the games. I hope readers also enjoyed the games that were only marginal to the survey.

The concluding game is between Arturs Neiksans and Donaldo Paiva from the first round match between Lativa and Mozambique. The featured survey is a new anti-Najdorf line in the Sicilian developed by Ioannis Simeonidis. He tells the story of how he came about finding this line and then having Vasilios Kotronias look it over. When Kotronias didn't find anything wrong with it, they decided that if it was as good as they thought, then it should be good enough for the World Champion to play. So they forwarded their idea to Magnus Carlsen! When Magnus used it to defeat Wojtaszek they had the final stamp of authority.

1.e4 c5 2.Nc3 Another anti-Najdorf system with a queenside fianchetto is the pet line of the veteran Chicago master Andrew Karklins 2.Nf3 d6 3.d4 cxd4 4.Nxd4 Nf6 5.Nc3 a6 6.Qf3 e6 7.b3 which he used to beat a young Peter Svidler 2...d6 3.d4 cxd4 4.Qxd4 Nc6 5.Qd2

The key move of the system. The white queen retreats to prepare a fianchetto of the queens bishop. It had only been played in a smattering of games before Carlsen played it against Wojtaszek in the 2018 Gashimov Memorial. 5.Bb5 is the primary alternative, which was often played by Gashimov. 5...Nf6 6.b3 e6 Black could also try combating the bishop along the long diagonal with 6...g6 7.Bb2 Bg7 which was also seen in the next round of the Olympiad in Nayhebaver-Turqueza 7.Bb2 Be7 8.0-0-0 a6 9.Kb1 b5 10.f3 0-0 11.g4 Bb7 In the final round of the Olympiad, Black didn't wait for the knight to be kicked and played 11...Nd7 and was ultimately successful in Sulskis-Lupulescu. 12.g5 Nd7 13.h4 Nc5 14.Nh3 b4 15.Nd5!?

A typical Sicilian sacrifice to split the board in two. There is no immediate win, but White maintains long term pressure. It reminds me very much of Tal's famous win over Larsen in the last game of their 1965 Candidates match. 15...exd5 16.exd5 Nb8 17.Qxb4 Nbd7 18.Qd4 f6 19.h5 Bc8 20.Be2 Rf7 21.g6 Rf8 22.gxh7+ Kxh7 23.Rdg1 Rf7 24.Rg6 Bf8 25.f4 Qe8 26.Bf3 Re7 27.Bc3 Nb6 28.Ng5+ fxg5 29.h6 Bh3 29...Qxg6 30.hxg7+ Kg8 31.Rh8+ Kf7 32.gxf8Q# 30.hxg7 Qxg6 31.Rxh3+ Kg8 32.Rh8+ Kf7 33.g8Q+ Qxg8 34.Bh5+ 1-0 It's mate after 34...Qg6 35.Bxg6+ Kxg6 36.Qf6#


8/14/19 - BCE-202b

I was going to start a series on the winner of New York 1924, Emanuel Lasker, this week, but didn't have time to prepare a post. Instead, I'll put that off for a week and just go with a filler position featuring an opposite colored bishop ending with two connected passed pawns against none.


8/12/19 - Bereolos-Hevia, 2017 US Masters

My loss to Carlos Hevia in the first round of the 2017 US Masters was a bad night at the office. I landed on the White side of an IQP position, which I rarely play, gave up the bishop pair to grab a pawn, got my rook trapped to a simple tactic, and pretty much went down without a fight. About the only positive was that it gave me motivation to avoid such a debacle when I faced the same opponent in the first round the following year.


8/7/19 - BCE-415a, Tartakower-Bogoljubow, New York 1924

We conclude the series of positions from the games of Tartakower with his encounter against Bogoljubow in first round of the 1924 supertournament in New York. The former world champion Emmanuel Lasker came out on top with a superb 16.5/20 outpacing the reigning world champion, Capablanca, by a point and a half despite losing one of their individual encounters. The future world champion, Alekhine was another point back in third.

Today's protagonists looked to be contenders early in the tournament. Tartakower was the clear leader after 4 rounds and Bogoljubow recovered from this loss to join a tie for first after 6 rounds. Bogoljubow had the bye in round 6 and lost 3 straight after that to fade from contention. Tartakower slowed after his fast start and completely faded down the stretch only collecting half a point in the last 6 rounds plus a bye. Both players finished with a minus score.

They reached a roughly level rook ending after 28...Kxf7

29.Re3 b5 30.Ke2 Rc6 31.Kd3 h4 32.Re2 g5 33.Rb2 Rb6 34.d5 Ke7 35.Kd4 g4 36.Kc5 Rb8 37.Kd4 In the tournament book, Alekhine considers the pawn ending drawn after 37.Rxb5 Rxb5+ 38.Kxb5 but his variation seems to give White some chances in the ensuing queen ending 38...f5?! (better is 38...Kd6) 39.Kc6 (instead of Alekhine's 39.Kc4) 39...f4 (39...Kd8 40.c4 f4 41.Kb7 f3 42.gxf3 gxf3 43.c5 f2 44.c6 f1Q 45.c7+ Ke7 46.c8Q doesn't appear to be much better as the White passed pawn is more advanced.) 40.Kc7 f3 41.gxf3 gxf3 42.d6+ Ke6 43.d7 f2 44.d8Q f1Q and White seems to have good chances with an extra pawn and the move. 37...Rb6 38.h3 38.Re2+ Kd7 39.Rf2 38...g3 39.a3 Kd7 40.Kc5 Rb8 41.Rb4 The starting position of BCE-415a a recurring theme is that Black wins the pawn ending after 41.Rxb5? Rxb5+! 42.Kxb5 f5! 43.Kc4 f4! 44.Kd3 f3! 41...f5 42.a4 Again, 42.Rxb5? Rxb5+! 43.Kxb5 f4-+ 42...a6 43.Kd4?! 43.d6 is a surer draw 43...Re8 Possibly another BCE correction is 43...a5!? 44.Rb2 (44.Rxb5 Rxb5! 45.axb5 a4-+) 44...b4 when engines strongly favor Black. 44.Kd3 44.axb5? Re4+! 45.Kd3 Rxb4! 46.cxb4 axb5! is another winning pawn ending for Black 44...bxa4 45.Rxa4 Re1 46.Rxa6 Rg1 Like Fine, Alekhine also gives this as the losing move, calling it deplorable 47.Ra2 Kd6 48.c4 Ke5 49.Re2+ Kd6 50.Rc2 Kc5 51.Rd2 Rf1? 51...Re1= is the subject of the BCE correction. Black could also hold in the variation given by Alekhine 51...Rc1 52.Ke3 Kd6 53.Rd4 Rc2 54.Rxh4 Ke5 (instead of Alekhine's 54...Rxg2?) and there doesn't seem to be a way for White to make progress since 55.Rd4? again results in a losing pawn ending 55...Rc3+! 56.Rd3 f4+! 57.Kd2 Rxd3+! 58.Kxd3 f3! 52.Ke2 Rg1 53.Ke3 Kd6 54.c5+ Kxc5 55.d6 Re1+ 56.Kf4 Re8 57.d7 Rd8 58.Kxf5 1-0


7/31/19 - BCE-373, Tartakower-Nimzowitsch, Bad Kissingen 1928

This week's BCE position comes from the 1928 tournament at Bad Kissingen. This tournament was a big triumph for Bogoljubov who finished clear first at 8 out of 11 a full point clear of Capablanca. Tartakower and Nimzowitsch finished in the middle of the pack. If Tartakower had converted today's endgame they would have both finished with even scores. Tartakower was well on his way to victory after 35...Rxd4

Black is only a pawn down, and will soon pick up the b-pawn, but he has no passed pawns and the White a-pawn is able to get far advanced while Black is collecting the b-pawn. 36.a5 Rb4 37.a6 Rxb2 38.Rb7 Ra2 39.a7 The threat of Rb8+ forces Black to abandon the f-pawn. 39...Kh7 40.Rxf7 Kg6 41.Rb7 The starting position for BCE-373 41...Kf6 42.Ke1 g6 43.Kd1 Ke5 44.Kc1 Kd5 45.Kb1 Ra6 46.Kb2 Kc6 47.Rg7 Kc5 48.h4 White can't go after the kingside pawns yet since 48.Rxg6 Rxa7 49.Rg5+ Kd4 50.Rxh5 Rf7 picks up the f-pawn and draws. 48...Ra5 49.g4? Tartakower tries to take advantage of the position of the Black king and rook to create a passed pawn on the kingside with a tactical stroke, but Nimzowitsch has a counter. The patient approach with 49.g3 is the BCE line 49...hxg4 50.h5 g3! Black creates his own passed pawn, which gives sufficient counterplay. 51.fxg3 e3! 52.Rxg6 The other choices also lead to a draw. 52.h6 e2! 53.Re7 Rxa7 54.Rxe2 Rh7 or 52.hxg6 e2 53.Re7 Rxa7 54.Rxe2 Rg7 55.Re6 Kd5 56.Ra6 Ke5 52...Rxa7 53.Kc2 Ra2+ 54.Kd1 Kd4 55.h6 e2+ 56.Ke1! Ke3 57.Re6+! Kf3! It isn't too late to go wrong with 57...Kd3? 58.Kf2! and the e-pawn is contained. 58.Rf6+ Ke3 59.Re6+! Kf3! 60.h7 Ra1+ 61.Kd2 Rd1+ 62.Kc2 Rd8 63.g4 Rh8 64.Kd2 Rxh7 65.Rxe2 Rd7+ 66.Ke1! Ra7 67.Rf2+ Kg3 68.Rf8 Kxg4 1/2-1/2


7/28/19 - Svetushkin-Pantsulaia, 2018 Batumi Olympiad

We're coming down the home stretch in the Olympiad/Yearbook 128 series. Luis Rodi presented a third survey on the Advance Variation of the Caro-Kann. It had an interesting premise that even though todays engines are super strong, they still are not perfect, so positions that have an evaluation of 0.00 may not be equal if you go deep enough. Unfortunately, the position he focused on did not get any testing during the Olympiad. Instead, I picked a game from the Moldova-Georgia match between Dimitry Svetushkin and Levan Pantsulaiathat that featured a theoretical sideline.

1.e4 c6 2.d4 d5 3.e5 Bf5 4.Nf3 e6 5.Be2 Nd7 5...c5 6.Be3 Qb6 7.Nc3 Nc6 8.Na4 Qa5+ 9.c3 was the subject of Rodi's survey. 6.0-0 Bb4!?

An odd looking move. White often plays for a queenside bind with c3 and b4 in this variation, and the text seems to walk right into that. However, Black reckons that his bishop is better placed to help attack White's center from c7 than it would be on e7. Magnus Carlsen has even tried the idea a couple of times, although he moved the bishop to b4 on the previous move. 7.Nbd2 This move and 7.c3 have the same number of games in the database. White has scored heavily in both lines. 7...Ba5 8.Nb3 Bc7 9.Bg5 9.Ne1 was the move in the big upset by Sanan Sjugirov over Carlsen in the 2010 Olympiad. 9...Ne7 9...f6 is the main alternative, but it has scored even worse than the text 10.Nh4 Be4 11.f3 Bg6 12.f4

12...f6 12...Be4 as used successfully by Dubov against Volokitin in the 2016 World Rapid Championship might be better than starting to open the position. The arrangement of the Black pieces makes it hard for the king to exit to the queenside. 13.exf6 gxf6 14.Bh6 Qb8 15.Bd3 Kf7 16.Qe2 Re8 17.Rae1 Nf5 18.Nxf5 exf5 18...Bxf5 19.Bxf5 exf5 20.Qh5+ 19.Qf3 Nb6 20.h4 Nc4 21.h5 Nd6

22.g4 White could pick up the bishop immediately 22.hxg6+ Kxg6 23.Qg3+ Kxh6 24.Kf2 with a devestating Rh1+ coming. However, the bishop isn't going anywhere 22...Rh8 22...fxg4 23.hxg6+ hxg6 24.Bxg6+ is decisive 23.Re2 Qc8 24.g5 Ne4 25.Rg2 Qg8 26.Qh3 Qd8 27.Nc5 Bb6 28.Nxe4 fxe4 29.f5

White is hunting more than just the bishop. He is willing to give up Bd3 in order to open the f-file for his rook. 29...Bxd4+ 30.Kh1 exd3 31.fxg6+ hxg6 32.hxg6+ 1-0 It's mate after 32...Kxg6 33.gxf6+ Kf7 34.Rg7+ Kf8 35.Re7+ Rxh6 36.Qxh6+ Kg8 37.Qg7# 1-0


7/26/19 - McDaniel-Bereolos, Put the Fun Back into Chess V 1984

I discovered another pawn ending that I misplayed with the assistance of the engine. This one comes from the 5th edition of Fred Gruenberg's Put the Fun Back into Chess tournament. Many players might know Mr. Gruenberg as the organizer for many years of the National Open in Las Vegas, but his organizing career started in Chicago and Put the Fun Back into Chess was his trademark tournament. It had everything you could want in a tournament, good prizes (15 GP points plus many class prizes) with a low entry fee ($15) plus free lunch, free snacks and raffles for prizes. The 1984 version drew in 170 players including 2 GMs among the 15 masters.

In the second round I had Black against Keith McDaniel after 34...Kb6 Despite the number of White pawns fixed on light squares, White can simply shuffle his bishop back and forth between d1 and f3 (or e2 if Black brings his bishop to g2) and Black is unable to take advantage of any of those weaknesses. Even the attempted pawn break with ...a4 can just be ignored. However, without realizing the danger, White kept the bishop on the open f1-a6 diagonal.

35.Bc4?35.Bd3? and 35.Bf1? are met with the same reply. In those cases White can stay in the bishop ending, but then the bishop can get to the squares it needs to in order to start winning pawns. For example, 35.Bf1? Ba6 36.Bh3 Be2 37.Ke3 Bd1 38.Kd4 (he still needs to keep c5 covered) 38...Bf3 39.Kc4 Be4 and Black gets the a2 pawn. 35...Ba6!Black forces a winning pawn ending 36.Bxa6 Kxa6! 37.Ke3 Kb6 38.Kd3 Kc5 39.Ke4 a4 40.bxa4

40...Kc4? This seems simple enough, to save his d-pawn, White must distract Black with the a-pawn. But after Black collects the a-pawn he dissolves the queenside pawns and outflanks White to win the d-pawn after all. Indeed, that is how the game played out. The road to victory was to retreat and collect the a-pawn first 40...Kb6! 41.Kd4 Ka5 41.a5? It turns out the d5 pawn just gets in the way of White's counterplay. He could hold the draw with 41.Ke3! Kxd5 (41...Kc5 42.Kd3! Kb6? 43.Kc4 and Black doesn't collect the a-pawn) 42.a5! Kc5 43.Ke4! Kb5 44.Kd5 which leads to a queen ending that should be drawn, but White has the better practical chances. Black has to decide where his king ends up, a6 or a5. 44...Kxa5 (44...Ka6 may be slightly better so that the king is on a5 at the end of the variation 45.Kc6 Kxa5 46.Kd7 d5 47.Kxe7 d4 48.Kf7 d3 49.e7 d2 50.e8Q d1Q)

45.Kc6! Ka6 (the problem is that Black can't go forward 45...Ka4? 46.Kd7! Ka3 (46...d5 47.Kxe7! and White will queen with check) 47.Kxe7! Kxa2 48.Kxd6! b3 49.e7! b2 50.e8Q b1Q 51.Qa4+ Kb2 52.Qb4+ and White mops up the kingside after the queen exchange.) 46.Kd7 d5 47.Kxe7 d4 48.Kf7 d3 49.e7 d2 50.e8Q d1Q

with the same queen ending as the note to 44...Ka6, except the Black king is on a6 instead of a5. 41...Kb5 42.Kd4 Kxa5 43.Kc4 43.Kd3 Kb5 44.Kd4 b3 43...Ka4 44.Kd3 b3 45.axb3+ Kxb3 0-1

Lessons from this ending. 1. Like in the Newson game, don't discount backwards moves (40...Kb6! and 41. Ke3!). 2. Be alert for chances even in seemingly simplified postions. 3. As always, calculation is key!


7/24/19 - BCE-300a, NN-Tartakower, Paris 1933

This week starts a series of three positions from the games of Savielly Tartakower. Tartakower represented both Poland and France in his career. He was at his peak from about 1920 to the mid-1930s. Sonas has him at #3 in March 1921 behind Capablanca and Rubinstein, so he was no slouch, but I don't think he was ever considered World Championship caliber. In Volume 1 of his Great Predecessors series, Kasparov only gives one game fragment from Tartakower, a famous endgame loss to Capablanca.

Tartakower made a big mark as an author. 500 Master Games of Chess is a classic compendium of historical games. The Hypermodern Game of Chess is also well regarded, but not one I have in my collection. I thought the original German version from 1924 would be in the public domain, but my search came up empty.

Likewise, my search for further information on the source of this week's position was fruitless. NN is commonly used in chess literature for an unknown opponent. Tartakower did play in the Paris championship in 1933 finishing second behind Alekhine, but this position was not from that event. It might have come from a casual game, but not one that Tartakower published in his best games collection. Fine does cite some articles from the Belgian magazine L'Echiquier in the BCE bibliography, so perhaps the position came from there. However, I could not find that publication in the public domain either.

The cook at the end of BCE-300a hinges on two factors, the distance between the two remaining pawns and the active position of the White king. The pawns are far enough apart that the Black king can only block. With the pawns closer together, the opposing king has to spend time going around its own pawn as shown in the following study by Reti, which is also BCE-300b.

1.Kf2! 1.Kxg2? is premature 1...Ke4! 2.Kf2 e1Q+! to block the first rank (2...Kd3? 3.Ke1!) 3.Kxe1 (3.Rxe1+ Kd3!) 3...Kd3! 4.Ra1 Kc3! 5.Rc1 Kd3! with a draw 1...Ke4 On 1...Kf4 White wins the way he should have won in BCE-300a 2.Kxe2 Kg3 3.Ke3 Kh2 4.Kf2! 2.Kxe2! Kd4 3.Rg1 Ke4 Going to the queenside mirrors the previous note 3...Kc3 4.Re1 Kb2 5.Kd2! Kb3 6.Rc1 4.Re1 and the Black king doesn't have a good move 4...Ke5 Black's king gets cut off if he tries either side 4...Kd4 5.Kd2; 4...Kf4 5.Kf2 Now the fastest win is 5.Ke3 and Black must cede more ground 5...Ke6 6.Ke4 Ke7 7. Kd3+ and the White king has time to get back to the kingside after collecting the c-pawn 7...Kf6 8. Kxc2 Kf5 9. Kd3 Kf4 10. Ke2 Kg3 11.Rg1 Kh2 12. Kf2!

With the king further away, even widely space pawns do not help as shown in the following study by , the king will also be too far away to support its pawns. The following study by Imre Bekey from 1933 illustrates this.

1.Kb6 Kc8 2.Kc6 [2.Rxc2+? lets the Black king become too active. 2...Kd7! 3.Rc1 Ke6! 4.Kc5 Ke5 and the Black king will be able to support the h-pawn 2...Kd8 The Black king can't get to the h-pawn in time after 2...Kb8 3.Re1 Ka7 4.Kb5 Kb7 5.Kb4 Kc6 6.Kb3 a1Q 7.Rxa1 Kd5 8.Kxc2 Ke4 9.Rh1 3.Re1 forcing Black to give up a pawn 3...a1Q 3...Kc8 4.Re8#; 3...c1Q+ 4.Rxc1! Ke7 5.Kd5 Kf6 6.Ke4 Kg5 7.Kf3 Kf5 8.Ra1 is similar 4.Rxa1! Ke7 5.Kd5 Kf6 6.Ke4 Kg5 7.Kf3 Kf5 8.Rc1 8.Kg2? Ke4 would throw the win away 8...Ke5 9.Kg2 1-0


7/22/19 - Nepomniachtchi-Anand, 2018 Batumi Olympiad

The final game from the closed openings in my Olympiad/Yearbook 128 series is a heavyweight battle from Board 1 of the Russia-India match between Ian Nepomniachtchi and Viswanathan Anand. In this case, the survey by David Cummings proved to be highly topical and the players delivered a complex game. As this was one of the more prominent matches, this game got a lot of coverage by Sopiko Guramishvili and Ivan Sokolov during the live broadcast. Nepo was definitely pushing, but Vishy defended and earned the draw.

1.c4 Nf6 2.Nc3 e6 3.e4 d5 4.cxd5 exd5 5.e5 Ne4 6.Nf3 Bf5

The starting point of Cummings survey. 7.d3 Nxc3 8.bxc3 c5 9.d4 Qa5 This move was introduced by Ding against Nakmura at 2018 Norway chess. Coincidentally, Ding was playing on the table next to this game. Anand spent a lot of time during the opening and it appeared he was trying to remember his analysis. He would stare off to his right, which made it appear like he was looking right at Ding. 10.Bd2 Nc6 11.c4 Cummings calls this the critical try. Nakamura played 11.Be2 and a complicated game ended in a draw. 11...Qd8 12.Qb3 Be6 13.Qxb7 Rc8 14.Ng5 Nxd4 15.Nxe6 fxe6 16.Rb1 Be7 17.Bd3 Kf7

A surprising move. Guramishvili and Sokolov had only looked at the more natural 17...0-0 which seems reasonable for Black although like in the game, the two bishops should give White the long term chances. The king move gives the e6-pawn and e7-bishop extra support, but the king looks very exposed on f7 potentially facing danger down the f-file across the 7th rank and on the a1-g8 diagonal. Generally this is the kind of a computer move that would have been prepared at home. However, I wonder if Anand had looked at Cummings analysis, and remembered the move, but not the exact position. Cummings continued 17...Nc6 18.f4 Kf7 (again this move instead of 18...0-0 ) 19.Qa6 Nb4 with counterplay. 18.0-0 Nc6 19.Be2 Nd4 19...Nxe5 20.Bf4 opens lines and puts Black under pressure. 20.Bd3 Nc6 21.Rfd1 Rc7 again 21...Nxe5 22.Bf4 Nxd3 23.Rxd3 gives plenty of compensation 22.Qb3 Nd4 23.Qb2 Rd7 24.cxd5 Rxd5 25.Bc4 Defending the pawn with 25.f4 runs into 25...Nf3+ 25...Rxe5 26.Qb7 Qa8

27.Bf4 This might be the point where Nepo lost his advantage. 27.Qc7 keeping the queens on, seems like a better way to pursue the attack. 27...Re4 28.Bg5 Nf5 29.Bf1 29.Bd3 Qxb7 30.Rxb7 Rd8 makes it more difficult for White to regain his pawn. 29...Rb4 30.Rxb4 cxb4 31.Rd7 Qxb7 32.Rxb7 a5

A nice move from Anand, making White have to spend extra time to regain his pawn and setting up b vs. a on the queenside, which will allow Black to swap the pawns with Rb8, Nd4 and b3. White might still have a little something to play for after 32...h6 33.Bxe7 Nxe7 34.Rxb4 although I would expect Anand would be able to hold this as well. However, I think finesses like this are what separate the super GMs from the rest. 33.Ra7 33.g4 h6 is the tactical justification of Black's last move 33...Rd8 34.Bxe7 Nxe7 35.Rxa5 Rb8 36.Bb5 Nf5 37.h4?!

I'm not sure what this move is about. White is trying to distract the Black knight from the d4 square, but a pawn down, he certainly can't have further winning ambitions. 37.g4 or 37.Bc4 are both met by 37...Nd4 and Black has no problems 37...Nxh4 38.Bc4 Ng6 39.Ra7+ Kf6 39...Ne7 is equal per the engine, but Black does have an extra pawn. 40.Ra6 Nf4 40...Nf8 maintains the extra pawn, but it is hard for Black to make progress. 41.g3 Rc8 42.Bb3 Ne2+ 43.Kg2 Nd4 1/2-1/2After 44.Rb6, White will regain is pawn, but Black can trade knight for bishop leading to a drawn rook ending.


7/17/19 - BCE-376a, Marshall-Capablanca 1909

The trilogy of Marshall positions is wrapped up with a very subtle and instructive rook ending from his match against Capablanca in 1909. This match was the explosive introduction of the Cuban maestro on the international chess scene. Marshall was one of the top players in the world at that point, while Capablanca very little known. This match changed all that. Capablanca won 7 of the first 13 games with only 1 loss. Marshall. After a series of 9 draws, Capablanca won the final game. On Sonas' rankings, Marshall was #9 on the April 1909 list and Capablanca did not appear. One month later he has Capablanca as equal 2nd with Rubinstein, trailing only the World Champion, Lasker.

Today's BCE position is from the 9th game. This may have been the last critical point in the match. Marshall trailed by 3 points at the start of this game, so maybe things would have been different if he had converted one of the several opportunities he had. Fine gave the game continuation as one variation, but didn't point out many errors, so the comments are all in the correction link this week.


7/10/19 - BCE-573, Marshall-Tarrasch, Ostend 1907

A few months after his disasterous World Championship match against Lasker, Marshall was back in action at the 6-player quadruple round robin Ostend tournament, which effectively was a candidates tournament for the next World Championship match. Tarrasch won a tight race, half a point clear of Schlecter, with Marshall and Janowski tied for 3rd another half point back. We previously saw a BCE example between Schlecter and Janowski. Today, features the other two players from the leading group. Tarrasch seemed well on his way to victory with Black after 59.Nf3

However, here he inexplicably played 59...Qxd5? In the tournament book, Tarrasch did not award this move a question mark, but mentioned that Black wins without difficulty with 59...Rxd5. Perhaps he thought he could just walk his king forward and pick up the pinned knight. 60.Qf8+ Kh7 61.Qe7+ Kg6 62.Qe8+ Kf5 62...Kf6 63.Qf8+ 63.Qh5+ Ke4 this breaks the pin on the knight so White regains the exchange. 64.Nxd2+ Qxd2 The starting position for BCE-573. The more active king and advanced e-pawn give Black winning chances, but objectively, the position is a draw. 65.Qg6+ Kd5 65...Kf3 66.Qf5+ picks up the e-pawn 66.Qxa6 e4 67.Qb5+ Kd4 68.Qb6+ Kd3 69.Qa6+ Ke3 70.Qxh6+! Ke2 71.Qh5+ Ke1 72.g4? f5 and b1 are key squares for White to deliver perpetual check. He would draw with 72.Qf5 as shown in the correction link 72...e3 73.Qc5 Kd1 In his annotations, Tarrasch gave 73...Kf1? as a faster win. He had calculated as far as 74.Qf5+! Qf2 75.Qb1+ Qe1 76.Qf5+! Ke2+ 77.Kg2 Qf2+ 78.Kh3! and abandoned the line as drawn since both sides would get new queens after a trade on f5. In his notes, he continued the variation with 78...Qf3+ 79.Kh4? Kf2 with an eventual win. In this line 79...Qxf5 is much easier as now Black queens first with check. But instead of walking onto the e1-h4 diagonal, White would draw with 79.Kh2! Kf2 80.Qc2+! e2 81.Qc5+! Qe3! else Black gets mated 82.Qf5+! Ke1 83.Qb1+! with perpetual check) 74.Qf5 Qf2? Tarrasch correctly identified this as the final mistake giving the winning line 74...e2 75.Qb1+ Qc1 76.Qd3+ Ke1 77.Kg2 Qc6+ which Fine extended a few more moves 78.Kg1 Qc5+ 79.Kg2 Qf2+ 80.Kh3 Kf1 81.g5 Kg1 and Black queens 75.Qb1+ Ke2 76.Qb5+ Kf3 77.Qd5+ Kg3 78.Qe5+ Kxg4 79.Qe4+ Kh3 80.Qe6+ Kg3 81.Qe5+ Kf3 82.Qd5+ Ke2 83.Qb5+ Kd1 84.Qb1+ Kd2 85.Qb2+ Ke1 86.Qb1+ Ke2 87.Qb5+ 1/2-1/2


7/3/19 - BCE-400, Nimzowitsch-Marshall, New York 1927

This week starts a series of three positions from the games of the legenday American Frank Marshall. Marshall was one of the first players given the title of "Grandmaster". His move 23...Qg3 against Levitsky is one of the most famous moves in chess history with legend having it that the spectators showered the board with gold pieces in appreciation of its brilliance. Among his many contributions to opening theory, his gambit idea in the Ruy Lopez is still one of the absolute main lines of opening theory, despite its unsuccessful debut.

Marshall came close to the ultimate chess summit, playing a match with Lasker for the World Championship in 1907. However, this turned out to be an total rout with Lasker winning the first three, the last four, and one game in between for an undefeated 11.5-3.5 drubbing.

Today's game against Aron Nimzowitsch comes from the super strong quadruple round robin contested at New York 1927. Capablanca was at the height of his powers and dominated with an undefeated +8, 2.5 points clear of Alekhine, with Nimzowitsch a further point behind. Marshall was past his prime at this point and finished last with only one win.

Fine seems to have used Alekhine's notes from the tournament book for this position. However, Alekhine was uncharacteristically sloppy in his annotations of this game. After 29.Rdg2

29...Bxe4 Alekhine gives 29...g5? as simpler, but 30.fxg5 hxg5 31.Rf2 (Instead of Alekhine's 31.Rxg5?) and the pin will cause Black to lose the exchange. 30.dxe4 Rd3 31.Rxg7 Rxe3 32.Rg8+ Allowing Black to activate his king. I think better winning chances were offered by 32.Re7 32...Kd7 33.R1g7+ Kc6 34.Rg6 As Alekhine shows, Black has sufficient counterplay after 34.Rc8 Rxf4 35.Rcxc7+ Kd6 36.Rxb7 Rf2 34...Rd6 35.e5 Re1+ 36.Kb2 Re2+ 37.Ka3 Rxg6! 38.Rxg6+! Kd5 39.Rxh6 The starting position for BCE-400 39...a5 40.Rh7 Rc2 Alekhine was critical of this winning attempt instead of the solid 40...Kc6 , but nothing is spoiled41.Re7 Fine's line beginning 41.Ka4 is the subject of the first correction. 41...b5 42.b4 The second correction occurs after 42.f5? where Alekhine also gives 42...b4+? instead of the winning 42...c6! 42...a4 This move was criticized as losing by both Alekhine and Fine. Instead, 42...axb4+ 43.Kxb4 Rc4+ 44.Kxb5 c6+ 45.Kb6 Rxf4 is a simpler draw. 43.f5 c5? The real loser, Black can still hang on after 43...Rf2 44.f6 Rf3+ 45.Kb2 Rf2+ 46.Kb1 Rf1+ 47.Kc2 Rf2+ 48.Kd3 Rxa2 49.Ke3 (49.f7 Rf2 50.e6 a3) 49...Ra1 50.Kf2 Ra2+ 51.Ke3 Ra1 52.Ke2 Ra2+ 53.Kf3 Ra1 54.Kg2 Ra2+ 55.Kg3 Ra1 44.f6? Both Alekhine and Fine point out that 44.e6! wins 44...Rc3+ 45.Kb2 cxb4 46.Rd7+ Kc6 47.Rd8 a3+ 48.Kb1 Re3 49.f6 b3 50.axb3 Re1+ 51.Ka2! (51.Kc2 a2!=) 51...b4 52.e7 Re2+ 53.Kb1 Re1+ 54.Kc2 a2 55.Ra8 Kd7 56.f7 44...Rc3+ 45.Kb2 cxb4 1/2-1/2 Everything is coming off after 46.f7 a3+ 47.Kb1 Rf3 48.e6 Rf1+ 49.Kc2 Rf2+ 50.Kd3 b3 51.axb3 a2 52.Ra7 Kxe6 53.Rxa2 Rxf7



older material


Stats since June 1, 2006
www.000webhost.com