Another wonderful video posted by Sergei Sorokhtin on youtube. This time the database had incorrect moves, so I reconstructed them from the video so that you can replay through the moves!
Now, little puzzle for you,
Does 26… Nd2 work in this position? Ok, does it work in blitz? What if you are Alexander Morozevich?
31.Kg2 White has an advantage, as the Black bishop is in a cage of white and black pawns. As Black tries to free up the bishop with 'g6-g5', his pawns are going to become weak. [31.Kf1 !? planning Kf1-e2-d3, then if 31...Bf6 32.Ke2 Bh4] 31...Bf6 32.Kg3 h6 ? ! [32...a4 !? A much better way to activate the bishop was: 33.Rc2 ! ? (33.a3 ? 33...c2 -0.48) 33...a3 34.Kf3 Kd7 35.Ke2 Bd8 36.Kd3 Ba5 37.f3 Rb8 38.Bb3 0.00] 33.Bb3 g5 34.Bc2 Ke6 35.Rb1 Diagram
35...gxf4+ ? [35...Bd8 36.Rb7 Bc7 +0.48] 36.Kxf4 Notice how many 'pawn islands' Black has. 36...Bg5+ 37.Kf3 Bd8 38.Rb5 d5 39.Ke2 Rc4 40.Kd3 a4 41.Rb8 Be7 42.Rh8 Diagram
All 5 Black's weak pawns start to fall down like leaves from a tree in fall. 42...f4 43.Rxh6+ Bf6 44.Rh7 a3 45.Bb3 c2 46.Bxc2 Rb4 47.Bb3 f3 48.Ra7 Diagram
1-0
I enjoyed watching the video while following the moves from the database in a separate window, you can do that too!
If you are curious how Grachev lost the endgame that was drawn all along, here is the culprit move/position:
Grachev blundered with 51… Kc8? and later the pawn advanced with a decisive tempo.
As pointed out by computer - correct was 51... Kd8! 52. Kb6 Rh2 53. Rg8+ Ke7 54. c6 Rb2+ 55. Kxa5 Rc2 56. Kb6 f3 =
When you are playing against Kramnik – any position is full of tricks!
In the endgame a king is supposed to play an active role, so it is easy to miss cases where suddenly the king ends up in grave danger. In one of the variations of the Panov attack – an endgame arises where Black has to have a subtle feeling for whether his king should be active, or safe. I’ve already written a post called “Breakthrough in a rook endgame” where the Black king was playing an active role, so now – a couple of examples where the king comes under massive fire of White’s two rooks and potentially gets mated.
Charbonneau – Jiganchine, Edmonton, 2000, analysis
Question:is it safe for Black to take on h2 with 29… Rxh2 ?
Answer: No! White plays a4 and Black has no good defence against Rb5+ and Rc6 #, say after 30. a4 Rxf2 31. Rb5+ Ka6 32. Rc6 #
After 30. a4!, there is no other good defence, e.g. 30... a6 31. a5+ Kb7 32. Rd7+ Kb8 33. Re1 Kc8 34. Rxg7
e.g. 34… Rd8 35. Rg8+ Kd7 36. Rxa8 +-
You’d say – who would fall for this type of trick? A grandmaster could, here is an example from the same Caro-Kann endgame:
Meier – Saltaev, 2006
(Click here to replay the entire game)
Black played 33… Kc4? (33… Kc3 was better) and resigned after 34. Rc7 Kd4 35. Rc5! 1-0
8/p7/8/2Rp1R1p/KP1k3r/P2r1P2/5P2/8 b - - 0 35
45...Bxe4 ?! with two bishops and an extra pawn Black is clearly winning; now things become more complicated. After being removed from the USSR Olympic team in 1952 ''for poor results", the WC, Mikhail Botvinnik was anxious to win the 1952 USSR Championship, to prove that "he could still play chess". In the final round he needed a win to catch up with Mark Taimanov; as a result, this endgame becomes the struggle of nerves. [45...Rf3-/+] 46.Bxe4 d5 47.Bd3 Be5 ? ! [47...e5 Botvinnik recommends: 48.Rb6 e4 49.Rxb7+ Kd6 50.Bxa6 Rxc2 -1.22 in positions with rooks + bishops of opposite colours, it is important to have a strong pawn center that would reduce the scope of opponent's pieces, bishop in particular (note a similar idea in Alexander-Smyslov) . Even though the material gets reduced, White's pieces are disorganized. 51.b4 ?! For example: (51.Rb6+ !? seems to be better) 51...e3 52.Kb3 ? ! (52.a5 Rc4 ! 53.Rb6+ Ke7 54.Bxc4 dxc4 55.Rb7+ Kf6 -5.50) 52...e2 !] 48.Rg8 Kd7 49.b4 Bf6 50.Rg1 Diagram
50...Rh2 again, Botvinnik notes that the 'e5' pawn must be pushed as soon as possible [50...e5 !] 51.Kb3 Kd6 52.Rd1 Ke7 53.c4 Rb2+ 54.Ka3 dxc4 55.Bxc4 Rc2 56.Bb3 Bb2+ 57.Ka2 Rf2 58.Bc4 a5 59.bxa5 Bc3+ 60.Kb3 Bxa5 61.Bb5 b6 Diagram
now the position has simplified too much, and most spectators expected a draw to be the result 62.Kc4 Kf6 63.Kd4 Rf4+ 64.Ke3 Ke5 65.Rh1 Re4+ 66.Kd3 Rg4 67.Rh5+ Kd6 68.Rh8 Ke5 69.Rh5+ Kf4 70.Rh3 Rg8 71.Rh4+ Ke5 72.Rh5+ Kd6 73.Rh4 Rg3+ 74.Ke4 [74.Kd4 ! 0.00] 74...Bd2 Diagram
75.Bd3 ? now a small miracle happens. 75...Bg5 ! 76.Rh5 Kc5 Diagram
White has to give up material to avoid mate. Probably inspired by such a finish, Botvinnik went to on to win his 7th national title in the tie-break match against Taimanov. 0-1
Replay game in the viewer:
37...Bxc3 38.b3 e6 39.Bc4 White is up two pawns and should win. 39...Kg7 40.Kc2 Bb4 41.Rd7 Kf6 Diagram
42.f5 ?! This 'tactical' shot just helps Black. 42...exf5 43.Rxf7+ Ke5 44.Kd3 ? [44.Bd3+-] 44...Rh8 Now the position becomes unclear. Black gets his own passer, which is supported by the king, rook, and bishop. To stop this pawn White sends his king. Seems to be a bit risky, does not it? 45.Rb7 Rxh3+ 46.Ke2 Bc3 Diagram
47.a5 !? White keeps finding tactical resources... 47...Ke4 [47...Bxa5 48.Rb5+] 48.a6 Rh2+ 49.Kf1 Diagram
49...f4 ? I think that Black is playing just using his intuition in this entire endgame. [49...Kf3 !? More precise was 50.Bd5+ Kg3 51.Rb8 (51.a7 ? 51...Rf2+ 52.Kg1 Rf4 -5.50) 51...Rf2+ 52.Kg1 Bd4 53.Rg8+ Kh3 and Black seems to be getting a draw: 54.Bc4 Rg2+ 55.Kf1 Rxg8 56.Bxg8 Kg3 57.Ke2 Kf4 0.00] 50.Rd7 f3 Diagram
51.a7 ?? Missing something very important... [51.Bd5+ White had some winning chances after 51...Ke3 52.Re7+ Kd3 53.Bxf3 Bd4 54.Be4+ (54.a7 ? 54...Rf2+ 55.Ke1 Rxf3-/+ !) 54...Kc3 55.Bd5 Ra2 56.Rc7+] 51...Rh1+ 52.Kf2 Be1# Diagram
A few years ago I got a great deal for a set of wireless mouse and keyboard (less than $40 CAD in total). And it’s been serving me great because cables annoy me (there is already too many of them around my desk). The only times the wireless mouse bothered me was when replacing batteries, and when playing blitz games: the control over the cursor is just not as tight as with a regular mouse. Recently I played a few games with a different mouse and noticed that my blitz EXPERIENCE is dramatically better. I feel a lot more confident and in the last game – I managed to outplay an opponent from a completely hopeless position and win on time. That got me thinking. With a bad mouse, I surely play moves a bit slower, but I rarely drop a queen. A better mouse may gain me 10-20 seconds per game, but is that really what makes such a difference? Sometimes it does, but I realized that the level of concentration I am able to achieve – is what really loses or wins 3 minute online games. I have not read Hikaru Nakamura and Bruce Harper’s recent book Bullet Chess: One Minute To Mate, but I am sure it talks about this. This also is true for regular games. Garry Kasparov in his foreword to Secrets of Chess Training by Dvoretsky, mentioned that ability to concentrate is one of the most important factors for success in chess.
When I win blitz games online
- The pieces and the board are convenient to see, the user interface is quick and responsive (I don’t need to think about it)
- The mouse is not there, the moves come from my brain, not from my fingers
- There is nobody talking to me while I am playing. TV is turned off
When I lose blitz games online
- I am tired before the game even begins
- I need to keep resizing the board to get it to be convenient
- I keep banging the mouse against whatever surface it’s on, because the surface is crap, and every move costs me mental energy that’s being wasted on getting the mouse to do what I want (move that darn pawn one square forward, not two, will you?)
- Someone starts talking to me to right when me and my opponent are down to the last 30 seconds
Cordless Mouse? Thanks, but no thanks!
I faced a grandmaster in a 15 minute game on ICC yesterday, probably for the first time after playing there on and off for about 10 years. After making a blunder in the middlegame, I was forced to give up a piece for only a pawn. However, in the endgame, my opponent played a couple of inaccurate moves, and suddenly my pawns were rolling:
Mr-Pattaya – DDT3000
Apparently Black’s pawns are too strong, and White’s are not going anywhere yet, so White decided to bail out and sacrifice both b7 pawn and the knight: 50. Rc8 Rxb7 51. Rc1 Kf6 52. Nxh3 gxh3 53. Kf3
The rook endgame is likely winning for Black, but we were down to about 1 minute SD, with 1 second increments, so as usual, a comedy of errors ensued. A few moves later, however, I got my chance for glory, after White played 66. d6??
66… Rh6!! would have won the game, as after 67. Rf8 Rxd6 I should be able to get to the Lucena position. Allowing me to queen the ‘f’ pawn after 67. Rxh6 f1Q should not save White either.
Instead I played 66… Ke2?? and White gave me a perpetual check with the rook, resulting in a DRAW. Perhaps – a fair result?
I am a believer in the approach of analyzing one’s games as a major tool for chess improvement, and already wrote a post about it. I keep a database of all games I played, and as I am bored – look back at my old endgames from many years ago. Most of them are more complicated than they appear on the first sight, but what I find even more interesting is that my old annotations from around 1999-2001 often contain more mistakes than the actual games. Mark Dvoretsky pointed out the phenomena that players are more relaxed during analysis than during the actual games, so annotations contain even the most obvious errors. He used Shirov’s games, but then also went on to give an example of how Kasparov missed mate in one while annotating Lasker-Steinitz game. I suspect in a lot of cases, including my own – the process of finding mistakes in old analysis has to do with
Medalen – Jiganchine, 2000
I played 73…g3!?, and after 74. Nd6 Bxd6 we both promoted our pawns, I got a drawn queen endgame with an extra pawn (which my opponent quickly lost). During and after the game in my analysis I was convinced that Bb8 wins on a spot. But actually – it leads to an even more forced draw. This must be some kind of optical illusion that makes you think that a bishop is doing a superior job to a knight in blocking a pawn, but they are actually equivalent as the next diagram shows.
74. Kb5! g3 75. Ne3 h5 76. Kxa5 h4 77. Kb6
77… g2 78. Nxg2 Kxg2 79. a5 h3 80. a6 h2 81. a7 Bxa7+ 82. Kxa7 h1=Q 83. b8=Q = with a dead draw
This position could have appeared in one of my old games, had I played 33. Bf2-e1!?
I would be forced to take on c3, and we’d need to see if White has a good response here after 34. Bxc3 bxc3
I blogged about another pawn endgame a couple of days ago, it was all pawn races and calculation. Here instead we need to think strategically – what plans does Black have, and how can we prevent them? Looking for the answer, you will see that Black’s protected passed pawn on c4 is going to keep White king tied up. Black king may then break through either on the kingside or on the queenside. We can keep queenside closed by playing a2-a4, but what about kingside?
35 . h6!! is the only way to create a fortress. 35… gxh6 (otherwise White would play 36. h7!) 36. h4 Kd7 37. a4 f6 38. exf6 Ke6 39. h5
Instead of allowing such a fortress, Black should play 33… b3! 34.axb3 cxb3 35. Kd1 Na3 36.Kc1 Nc4 –+
I usually do not post very detailed analysis on this blog since
a) complicated analysis is not always necessary to illustrate an idea
b) who has time to read chess complex analysis on the Internet
c) lengthy variations often contain errors and are wrong anyway
In this pawn endgame from one of my games from 2000 BC Active Championship – complex analysis is required, but ideally the result of such an analysis is not a myriad of variations, but rather a collection of themes and ideas that serve the purpose of finding the truth – evaluation of each given position that occurred during the game. I suggest that you look at the ideas first, and only if you`re interested – look at the more detailed analysis.
Who is better here? During the game, I felt that White ought to be better (even winning) because White would create two disconnected passed pawns – one on the kingside, and one on the queenside. Black king would not be able to stop both, while White king can safely block the ‘e’ and ‘f’ pawns. Things are a LOT more complicated however, because Black has several counterattacking ideas:
1) Black can have pawn breakthrough on the queenside to create his own passed pawn, before White gets his ‘h’ pawn going.
Imagine after 34...e4! 35.Kd2 f4 36.a4 Kd7 37.b4 Creating a passed pawn like this does not work since central pawns are too far advanced, and g and h pawns are not going anywhere, so Black king can stop the a pawn
2) Black can activate the king to support central pawns
Again, imagine a hypothetical position after 34. Kd7 35. a4 e4 36. b4 axb4 37. cxb4 f4 38. h4 Ke639. a5 Kf5 40. b5 f3 41. Kd2 
But not 41... Kf4? 42. a6 f2 43. axb7 f1=Q 44. b8=Q+ with a draw since White queens with check. Mark Dvoretsky's Endgame Manual has several similar positions. I remembered from his book that it is advantageous to have the pawns advanced as far as possible – in that case when the king supports the pawns, they are a lot more dangerous. For the same reason, it is better for White to play Kd3, sooner rather than later. Already here we can see that in this endgame – every tempo may count.
3) Black can blockade White pawns if they are advanced carelessly - This is what happened in the game, after 34… Kd7 35. b4? axb4 36. cxb4 b5!
If Black is careless (and in our game he was), however, that breakthrough will be very effective:
Now that I covered the themes of this endgame, and assuming you are still bearing with me, on to what actually happened in the game, which turned into a comedy of errors, as we were blasting off the last moves in SD time control.
34...Kd7?
it may be hard to evaluate this move precisely, but likely committing the king too early was a mistake. The core of the position seems to be that Black needs to advance his e and f pawns ASAP, and White should create passed pawns on kingside and queenside. The White pawns have not advanced far enough though, and Black manages to create his own queenside passer in many lines 34...e4! was correct, I believe Black is winning –+
35.b4? Now only black can play for a win. Correct was 35. Kd3! Ke6 (35...e4+ !?) 36.h4 on the kingside - White can create a passed pawn (or a threat of one), on the queenside - both sides can create a passed pawn if white plays a4 and b4, and Black breaks through with b5. So maybe makes sense to advance kingside pawns first? 36...Kf7 37.h5 Ke7 38.a4+- Diagram
White is winning since Black does not have time to bring central pawns into motion 38...f4 39.Ke4 Ke6 40.b4 f3 41.Kxf3 Kf5 42.bxa5 Kxg5 43.c4 Kxh5 44.c5 Kh4 45.a6+] 35...axb4 36.cxb4 b5 Diagram
during the game - here I realized that I made a mistake. the tables have turned, now White will have to create rescuing chances by the a4 break, but his king will have to guard the e and f pawns as well 37.h4 Ke6 Diagram
38.Kc3? 38.Kd3! definitely makes more sense, even though it could still be losing
38...Kd5??+- Diagram
Without good reason - the king goes too far away from the h pawn [38...f4 Diagram
and White king is too far from e4 39.h5 Kf5 40.g6 hxg6 41.h6 Kf6-+ 42.a4 f3 43.Kd3 bxa4 44.b5 f2!-+ Diagram
this is why it is better to have White king closer to the ‘f’ pawn before playing a4 45.Ke2 a3 46.h7 Kg7 47.h8Q+ Kxh8 48.b6 a2 49.b7 f1Q+ 50.Kxf1 a1Q+-+]
39.Kd3??-+ Diagram
this move should have lead to a loss.
[39.h5! was correct Ke6 Diagram
40.a4! bxa4 41.g6! hxg6 42.h6 Kf7 43.b5 f4 44.h7 Kg7 45.b6 f3 46.b7 f2 Diagram
47.h8Q+ Kxh8 48.b8Q+;
After 39.Kd3? Now black gives a few decisive checks, and the breakthrough is no longer possible, since Black's `a` pawn runs ahead, and my king is too far to stop it. 39...e4+ Black gains decisive tempo for advancing his pawns. 40.Kd2 f4 41.h5 Ke6 42.g6 hxg6 43.h6 Kf6 44.a4 bxa4 45.b5 a3 46.h7 Kg7 47.b6 Kxh7 48.b7 a2 49.b8Q a1Q 50.Qxf4 Qa5+-+]
All this did not matter, since we were both so short on time and confused about what was going on that we agreed to a draw: 1/2-1/2
A very complicated pawn endgame, in which both White and Black were taking turns in making decisive mistakes. The endgame was initially winning for Black, then tables turned several times, some variations lead to possible draw in queen endgames. When I looked at it the first time in 2007, I came to several wrong conclusions, and even now, after spending another few days on it – I am not sure of all evaluations! Pawn endgames are supposed to be simple …
You can replay it in the viewer with even more detailed analysis:
Posts
All Comments
