CAN SOMBODY SEND TO MY ADDRESS AN CHESSBASE ARCHIVE BASE OF "Opposite-Coloured Bishop Endgames"? IN RETURN I WILL SENT A BENEFACTOR A BUNCH OF ARCHIVES.   
   
PS. I HAVE ALSO BASES ABOUT PAWN ENDINGS, SOME OF MY OWN, SOME OF CHESSBASE AND OTHERS!!!   
   
Please contact me on: darkcore@net.hr   

After watching the Karsten Mueller Endgame DVD, I think I can see now that in this ending the Black Rook is optimally placed to keep the White King off the 8th rank and also keeping a checking distance of 3 squares, so Black has to move the King. Easy peasy 

Yes John, Ke8 is the answer to Ra7.
... and was what Aronian played (then Carlsen resigned)

First,
Strange all of U are talking about Rb8? Because that move was never played.... (Carlsen played Ra7+)

Second,
Of course Carlsen knew this ending....
I have bigger mistakes (even at this level) before!

Yes, my Averbakh endgame CD also has this ending, also with the Rd6!? try. In my database I have found 2 games that reached this position (Van Der Sterren - Kuijf 1983 and Van Ho - Orr 1992). In both cases black, which were master strength players, went for ...Rb8? and lost.

Klck, 

I haven't actually looked, but isn't this exact position covered in Rook Endings by Levenfisch and Smyslov????

I too remember studying this position and specifically remember ...Rb8 was a losing move.

Well it's worth ressurecting to add fuel to a desire for an Endgame section on Chesspub . 

As for endgame study, I've got by fine with Howell's "Essential Chess Endings" which concentrates on the typical endings which are most likely to occur in practice, and includes sussinct sections on QvR and R+BvR discussed in this thread. I've got Shereshevsky's Endgame strategy and Fundamental Chess Endings, but they are both still on my "to read" pile.

A while back I went through my games, picked out the ones that reached (non-trivial win) endings, and then worked out my rating performance from them. It came to about the same as my actual grade, so my endgame knowledge, though with much scope for improvement, isn't a problem at the moment on limited study.

Boy, this is embarrassing    

MNb, you are right, I don't have the correct move number.  After 40.b4 Rf7! 41.Rh6 (I'll look at an earlier Ke3, but I don't think it will work), Black is still better after 41...Ke5 42.Ke3.  Unfortunately, it isn't enough to win.  Concrete variations to follow.

Ok,

Here's my most up-to-date conclusions about the endgame we've been looking at.  Following on from 40...Ke5, there is only one move, as far as I can tell, that doesn't lose more or less instantly for White.  White can't move either his B or R, and pawn moves only help Black, so he has to play 41.Ke3! gaining the opposition and threatening moves such as Rh5+ and Bc3+.  The obvious ways forward for Black all force immediate draws or even lose.  I am at an impasse here, and despite having earlier stated that I thought Black was winning, I can't find any way to prove it right now.   I'd still prefer to play Black, but I don't see a way to make progress.  And if Black can't use his initiative, then the game really is drawn.  Bummer.  If you want specific lines, let me know.  They're pretty straightforward, unless of course I'm missing something.

Cheers!

MNb wrote
Quote:


Yes, I agree.

My previous note had the wrong move number.  I am pretty sure that Black only draws after 40...b6.  Instead, 40...Ke5 (not 41....Ke5 as I previously wrote) remains unclear.  I still think BLACK has enough winning chances to continue playing, but this is a critical improvement for White.   

If it goes into a Rook ending, I think the drawing chances skyrocket but if White carelessly trades rooks, keeping the minor pieces on, without creating a passer on the Q-side, he probably loses.  I've looked at some possible pawn endings, and White's king is just too passively placed to survive any pure pawn endings unless he can get that a-pawn passed or win the h-pawn for the b-pawn.   

This has really been interesting, I'd like to see more strong players analyse these endgames with us.  I'm sure that a thorough study of this endgame could take weeks, and the more thoughtful players we have working on this, the better! 8)

@Kevinludwig:

That's an interesting position, let's devote another thread to it so we don't get confused.

Regarding the Korchnoi-Ponomariov position, 

We seem to agree that the critical position lies in the variation Bd2 with b4.

Here's the position:

White:  Kf2 Rh5 Bd2
Pawns:  a4 b4 f3 h2

Black: Kd6 Rg7 Ne6
Pawns:  b7, c6 d5 h7

BLACK TO MOVE


Here's what I first wrote:

I think Black's chances of winning are greater than White's chances of drawing after
40...b6.  This threatens c5, and the resulting pawn structure is, if anything, even worse for White than what happened in the game!  

I've now checked the variations with Fritz, and this time, 41.Rh6 is actually a good move for White!  It threatens both Bf4 and Be3 (hitting the "wonderful" pawn on b6).  This is enough to wipe out most of Black's winning chances.  If Black tries too hard to win this position, he could even lose!  

Therefore, after 41.Rh6! Ke5 looks just about forced instead of pushing the b-pawn.  There are two ideas at work for Black here: a) unpin the N without blocking the rook's path to the a-file b) advance the king, via e5-d4-c4 to the Q-side and try to weaken things from behind.  Of course, timing is everything, but I still like Black's chances.  If I was Black I would certainly play on.  My guess is that Black has about a 40% winning chance, 35% drawing chance, and 15% losing chance.  At the highest levels, those losing chances diminish down to near zero, but I still like Black's chances (slightly) to win.


BTW:  On Tuesday, I'll come up with another endgame from TWIC and start it on a separate thread.

Not that this adds much to the discussion, but I also came to the conclusion that everything looked correct up to move 39. Then my first guess was 39. Bb6, since it tries to hold up the pawns with the bishop, followed by 40. b4. Then I decided that maybe 39. Bd2 would place the bishop better, so 39. Bd2 Kd6 40. b4. (Exactly what Mnb came up with). This looks pretty easy to draw. Fritz wants to play 40. c5, but liquidating the queenside pawns is just what white wants. If all the queenside pawns come off, black is left with a passed d-pawn, and this isn't enough for a win, because white's king is well placed to blockade the pawn (which basically guarantees the draw in any rook ending).

Here's a sample line that I found with the help of Fritz.

39.  Bd2! Kd6 40.a5 (Fritz) c5! 41.Rh6 (White is in virtual zugzwang.  I don't know what else White can do here.) Rf7 42.Ke3 Kd7 (d4?? 43.Ke4! +/- or even winning for White) 43.Rh5 Nf4! 44.Rh6 Ng6! and now Fritz plays the horrible looking 45.b4 but couldn't hold the ending in a quick analysis.

First the entire game, for those who have not downloaded it:

Korchnoi,V (2619) - Ponomariov,R (2695) [E01]
Pivdenny Bank Geller Mem Odessa UKR (8), 03.07.2005

1.c4 Pf6 2.d4 e6 3.g3 d5 4.Lg2 Lb4+ 5.Pd2 0-0 6.Dc2 Pc6 7.Pgf3 dxc4 8.Dxc4 Dd5 9.0-0 Lxd2 10.Dxd5 exd5 11.Lxd2 Te8 12.Tfe1 Lg4 13.Le3 Pe4 14.Tac1 Te7 15.Pe5 Ld7 16.Pxd7 Txd7 17.f3 Pd6 18.Lf2 a5 19.Tc5 Pe7 20.Lh3 f5 21.e4 c6 22.Tc2 g6 23.e5 Pb5 24.g4 Tf8 25.a4 Pc7 26.e6 Tdd8 27.Lh4 Tde8 28.Te5 fxg4 29.Lxg4 Tf4 30.Td2 Pf5 31.Lg5 Txd4 32.Lxf5 Txd2 33.Lxd2 gxf5 34.e7 Kf7 35.Txf5+ Kxe7 36.Th5 Tg8+ 37.Kf2 Tg7 38.Lxa5 Pe6 39.Lb4+ c5 40.Ld2 Kd6 41.Tf5 d4 42.h4 b5 43.axb5 Tb7 44.b4 c4 45.Lf4+ Pxf4 46.Txf4 Ke5 47.Tg4 h6 48.Tg8 Txb5 49.Te8+ Kf5 50.Td8 d3 51.Td4 Txb4 52.Ke3 Ke5 53.h5 Ta4 54.f4+ Kf5 55.Td5+ Kg4 56.Tc5 Tb4 57.Tc6 Kxh5 58.f5 Kg5 59.f6 Kg6 60.f7+ Kxf7 61.Txh6 Tb2 62.Th1 Tc2 63.Tb1 d2 64.Ke2 c3 65.Kd1 Ta2 66.Ke2 d1D+ 0-1

Smyslov_Fan gives the position after White's 34th move.
My proposal is to deviate at move 39. I do not understand, why Kortsnoj provoked the advance of Black's centre pawns, the main trump. Fatigue? Miscalculation?
39.Bd2 d4 40.b4 looks like an improved version of the game.
Another option is 39.Ke3 in order to centralize the king first, eg Kd6 40.Bc3 Rf7 41.b4.
White should not exchange his bishop for the Black knight, as there are pawns on all three fronts. Exchanging rooks though looks desirable, but I do not see how. White can think of a well-timed b4-b5 and perhaps, perhaps, advancing his f-pawn. IMO White keeps good prospects for a draw.
The rook endgame at move 46, 47 is terrible for White.

Ok, here's an idea... 

(My computer won't let me access Blitzen right now, so I can't play on ICC )

Let's pick a complex endgame that hasn't been analysed to death and break it down for each other.  We try to choose one new one each week or so, and we give diagrams.  That is, once I learn how to do that!    I'll go through TWIC today and try to pick one that seems interesting to me.  What do you all think?

Klick:
I am registered as kevinludwig through chesspublishing. My ICC handle is also kevinludwig. I'm up for playing some endings on ICC.

I received Fundamental Chess Endings in the mail today and it looks like a good book. Of course I immediately looked up on the B+R+K vs. R+K ending to see what it says. It devotes about 5 pages to this ending and mentions three main positions for the defender. The most important are the Cochrane position (defence) and the 2nd rank defence. 

Now the Cochrane-defence should suffice to draw alone. It does not look hard to play. It is based on the defender pinning the bishop and the attacker having problems unpinning it.

I`ve tried playing against Fritz a couple of times with draw as a result (turning off tablebases, otherwise it does not make sensible moves), but I guess it is better to play against some human opponents.

Now there is just one thing that baffles me. Do not players such as Nijboer and Onischuk know how to draw this? Apparently Nijober did not, as he had the Cochrane position, but did not play into it again when he had the chance. And how come the superior side wins so many games when the drawing-technique can be so  "simple" ?

Obviously even very strong players don`t know about proper defence in this ending..  Strange stuff.

Smyslov_Fan:
My experience is similar to yours. Except you sound a bit higher rated. I have spent time on rook endings and some time on king and pawn endings. The minor piece endings I have only studied from the perspective of general principles. I had not heard that knowledge of these was an indication of strength.

Mnb: 
The book is "A Guide to Chess Endings", by Euwe and Hooper. 

"So I felt it really could be mastered by anybody with a book and enough motivation."
You should have added: and enough time.

Euwe was a teacher in mathematics. He choose his examples exactly for the educational reasons Kevin has described so well: not to remember the exact positions, but to improve the general abilities.
So Euwe's book was a success. If it is the one I think it is, I must say though, that Averbach's book IMHO was still better.

"I suspect that the rapid time limits now in vogue serve to undermine the endgame technique of many players."
I agree, though I support abandoning adjournments. But in a way this statement supports rapid time limits: players with the better endgame technique should take benefit in general.

Quote:


I think that actually, it's more important to study the technical endings.  So often, you have to know whether a given simplified position is won or drawn -- and have some idea of how to do it!  I don't see how anyone can be much good in "strategic" endgame play without the technical knowledge.

Besides studying technical endings, I think you have to keep restudying them -- unless you play a great deal of slow chess.  For me at least, it's easy to forget this stuff.

Once during a tournament, I was a pawn down in K+R versus K+R+P.  I had studied this ending very considerably but, perhaps due to stress, I just could not remember the drawing technique in the given position.  Fortunately, the game was adjourned, and before the replay, I simply went to the book store, looked at a rook ending book without even bothering to buy it, and rediscovered the drawing technique.  The game was drawn.  I hope that since that happened during adjournment, it was legal.

The funny thing is that I have a very vidid recollection of that one certain way of making a draw.  I think that if I had played a great many endings during my life, I would now have a much, much better command of endgame technique.

I suspect that the rapid time limits now in vogue serve to undermine the endgame technique of many players.

(Akavall, you can insert a diagram by clicking on the image-button when writing a message. You have to refer to an image-file somewhere on the internet by entering the URL of the image. Interesting game by the way.)
_____________________________________________

Of course, MNb and I are entitled to disagree. That is why discussions are useful, exchanging views. In that way we learn about the world and what`s in it.

I just want to reiterate that I think the true value of endgame-skills is that this transfers to your middlegame-skills as you know what to trade down for. Akavall also has a good point.

You don`t need to study 10hrs a day to become decent at the ending, unless you spend 9 1/2 of them on the opening and study by playing blitz on ICC. There is a limited amount of positions that you do have to know to play the endgame decently and it will take you less time looking at these than learning, for instance, some of the lines of the Najdorf-defence.

In the game-example MNb - Arp, is not Be3 in the ending-position, pinning the rook, a simple draw as the black king cannot leave g5?

All that said I very much understand that it is important to prioritize and I totally agree. There is not much point going beyond the Lucena, Philidor and how to win/draw against a single pawn if your time is more wisely spent on the opening. One probably experience a shift in what one benefits from as one become a stronger player. 

My interest in the endgame stems not only from the fact that I think it is useful, but also because I find it interesting and fun! And I play chess for enjoyment.

By the way, thanks for the book-suggestions Kevin!
 

Mnb: I have the book "Combination Challenge!", which has some positions on the cover with the caption "How would you have played these positions?". A guy I work with saw my book and laughed out loud, saying "Hmmm...I don't know. I've NEVER had those positions!". As you and I know, it turns out that studying tactics is important and useful, even if you have never had, or never will have, the positions in the diagram(s). And I would argue that the same is true of endings. But, after all, chess isn't a job. So study what you enjoy. Not everybody is going to think that rook endings are "fun".

There are two types of endgame study. Endgame planning (as exmplified by Sherevshevsky's Endgame Strategy, Aagaard's Excelling at Technical Chess, and some of Dvoretsky's works) is for me far more relevant and interesting than studying technical endgames (which make up most endgame books e.g. Fundamental Chess Endings).

I also think studying endgames arising from openings from your repertoire is most useful. One just needs to go through as many annotated games as possible. This is where New in Chess yearbooks are most useful.  

There is a large chapter in "Secrets of Pawnless Endings" on your "headache" ending. But I have found the coverage in "Fundamental Chess Endings" to be sufficient.

Endings can be fun to practice...when I first learned the N+B+K vs. K, my friends and I would play 2 minutes to a side from arbitrary positions. When you get pretty good at it, 2 minutes is plenty of time to get the mate. R+B+K vs. R+K could also be fun that way. Another fun one would be R+K vs. R+K+2pawns (bishop & rook pawn on the same side): That is supposed to be a draw but sometimes GM's lose.

It will be nice to see more instructional material on Chesspub, even on the endgame (perhaps on the gold plus section). There was an interesting article in New in Chess on Bahr's rules many years ago. It was the first time someone got me interested in the endgame, which was really quite a feat for a young kid.

Here is another game which resulted in the R+B vs. R, and again the side with R+B won.


[Event "Corus-B"]
[Site "Wijk aan Zee"]
[Date "2005.01.15"]
[Round "1"]
[White "Kosteniuk,Alexandra"]
[Black "Onischuk,Alexander"]
[Result "1-0"]
[Eco "C65"]
1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bb5 Nf6 4.0-0 Bc5 5.c3 0-0 6.d4 Bb6 7.Bg5 h6 8.Bh4 d6 
9.Qd3 Bd7 10.Nbd2 a6 11.Bc4 exd4 12.cxd4 g5 13.e5 gxh4 14.Qg6+ Kh8 15.Qxh6+ Nh7 16.Ne4 f5 
17.Nfg5 Qe7 18.Nf6 Qg7 19.Qxh7+ Qxh7 20.Ngxh7 Rfd8 21.Ng5 dxe5 22.Nf7+ Kg7 23.dxe5 Nxe5 24.Nh5+ Kg6 
25.Nxe5+ Kxh5 26.Be2+ Kg5 27.Nf7+ Kf6 28.Nxd8 Rxd8 29.Rad1 Re8 30.Bf3 Bc8 31.Rfe1 Rg8 32.Bd5 Rh8 
33.Bb3 Bc5 34.Rd3 Bd6 35.Bd5 b6 36.g3 Bd7 37.Rf3 Rh5 38.Re4 hxg3 39.hxg3 f4 40.Rfxf4+ Bxf4 
41.Rxf4+ Ke7 42.Rd4 c5 43.Rd2 b5 44.f4 c4 45.Kf2 a5 46.Ke3 Rh3 47.Rg2 Rh1 48.a4 b4 
49.Bxc4 Bxa4 50.g4 Bc6 51.Rg3 Re1+ 52.Kd2 Rb1 53.b3 a4 54.Re3+ Kf8 55.bxa4 Bxa4 56.Bd3 Rb2+ 
57.Kc1 Rg2 58.g5 Be8 59.Re6 b3 60.Rb6 Rg4 61.Rf6+ Kg7 62.Bc4 Ba4 63.Bd5 Rg3 64.Kb2 Re3 
65.Rb6 Re2+ 66.Ka3 Ra2+ 67.Kb4 Rf2 68.Rb7+ Kg6 69.Be4+ Kh5 70.Rf7 Be8 71.Rf8 b2 72.Kc3 Bg6 
73.Rh8+ Kg4 74.Bxg6 Rxf4 75.Kxb2 Kxg5 76.Bd3 Kf6 77.Re8 Kf7 78.Re3 Kf6 79.Kc3 Rh4 80.Bc4 Kf5 
81.Kb4 Kf4 82.Re7 Rh5 83.Kc3 Re5 84.Rf7+ Rf5 85.Re7 Re5 86.Rh7 Re3+ 87.Bd3 Re8 88.Rh4+ Ke3 
89.Rh1 Rc8+ 90.Bc4 Rd8 91.Be6 Rd3+ 92.Kc4 Rd4+ 93.Kc5 Ra4 94.Rh3+ Kf2 95.Bc4 Ra8 96.Kd4 Ra4 
97.Rc3 Ra7 98.Ke4 Rh7 99.Rf3+ Kg2 100.Bd5 Rh4+ 101.Ke5 Kg1 102.Be4 Rh2 103.Rf4 Rd2 104.Kf5 Rf2 
105.Bf3 Rb2 106.Rh4 Rb8 107.Kf4 Kf2 108.Rh2+ Ke1 109.Be4 Rb3 110.Bf3 Rb4+ 111.Kg3 Rd4 112.Re2+ Kf1 
113.Re3 Rd2 114.Ra3 Rd4 115.Re3  1-0

Chess-openings are interesting, sure. No doubt about it. But what about the endgame?   I think the endgame is a part of the game that many (even strong) players neglect out of "ill will", i.e. they do not "have the time" (or for some other reason) to do some really serious work there.

It got me all thinking when I some years ago read the following article on Chessbase on the difficulties of winning with Queen vs. Rook: http://www.chessbase.com/newsdetail.asp?newsid=75
 Subsequently I tried to look further into this endgame with a friend and did indeed find out that it was incredibly difficult to win with correct play from the defending side.

Realizing the depth and all the points that were available to gain by correct endgame-play I`ve continued at slow pace to study the endgame, starting out with just "pure" pawn-play, which also is not clearly easy always.

Just yesterday I were watching the European Championship, giving special attention to the Nijboer-
Volkov game. The game, itself interesting, ended in a R+B vs.R endgame, which the superior side to my great surprise went on to win. I discovered that the ending, although usually a theoretical draw often practically wins. The superior side wins in about 50% of the cases due to the defender not finding the best continuation.

Now this was completely new to me and just shows how interesting endgame-play is and how much can be gained by studying it.

I therefore thought that even though this is an opening-theory site it would be interesting to dedicate at least a small topic in the forum to the endgame  

If anyone are interested in studying/training endgame-play with me on ICC, feel free to message me or post.

For you others I would be interested to hear your opinion on the R+B vs. R ending. Benko called this the "headache ending"  8)

_____________________________________
For interested readers, here is the Nijober-Volkov game:

[Event "European Chmp. 05"]
[White "Nijboer, F."]
[Black "Volkov, S."]
[Result "0-1"]
[ECO "C06"]
[PlyCount "342"]
[EventDate "2005.06.21"]
[SourceDate "2005.06.21"]

1. e4 e6 2. d4 d5 3. Nd2 Nf6 4. e5 Nfd7 5. c3 c5 6. Bd3 Nc6 7. Ne2 cxd4 8. cxd4
f6 9. exf6 Nxf6 10. Nf3 Bd6 11. O-O O-O 12. Bf4 Bxf4 13. Nxf4 Ne4 14. Ne2 Rxf3
15. gxf3 Ng5 16. Kh1 e5 17. Qb3 Kh8 18. Bb5 exd4 19. Rad1 Qf6 20. f4 Ne6 21.
Qg3 Bd7 22. Rg1 Rf8 23. f5 Nc5 24. f3 Bxf5 25. Bxc6 bxc6 26. Nxd4 Bg6 27. Qg5
Qf7 28. Rge1 h6 29. Qe7 Nd3 30. Qxf7 Rxf7 31. Rxd3 Bxd3 32. Re3 Bb1 33. Nxc6
Rc7 34. Nd4 Rc1+ 35. Kg2 Rd1 36. Re8+ Kh7 37. Ne6 Kg6 38. Rd8 Kf6 39. Nc5 Bxa2
40. b3 Ke5 41. Ra8 Kd4 42. b4 Kc4 43. Rxa7 Rd2+ 44. Kg3 Kxb4 45. Ne6 g6 46. Rg7
Rd1 47. Kf2 Bb1 48. h4 Kc3 49. Rc7+ Kb2 50. Rb7+ Kc2 51. Rc7+ Kd2 52. Rc5 Ba2
53. Nf4 d4 54. Nxg6 Rc1 55. Ra5 Rc2 56. Nf4 d3 57. Kg3 Bc4 58. Rh5 Ke3 59. Nxd3
Bxd3 60. Rxh6 Rc8 61. Re6+ Kd4 62. h5 Bf5 63. Re7 Rh8 64. Kf4 Bb1 65. Rd7+ Kc5
66. Rg7 Rf8+ 67. Kg4 Kd5 68. h6 Ke5 69. Re7+ Kf6 70. Rb7 Bf5+ 71. Kh4 Rd8 72.
Rb6+ Be6 73. Kg3 Rh8 74. Ra6 Rxh6 75. Ra8 Rh3+ 76. Kg2 Rh7 77. Rf8+ Ke5 78. Kg3
Rg7+ 79. Kf2 Bf5 80. Ra8 Bd7 81. Ra7 Kf4 82. Rb7 Rh7 83. Rb4+ Ke5 84. Rb7 Rf7
85. Kg3 Kd6 86. Rb4 Bc6 87. Rf4 Ra7 88. Rf6+ Kd5 89. Kf2 Ra2+ 90. Kg3 Rc2 91.
Rf5+ Kd4 92. Rf6 Bd5 93. Rf8 Rc7 94. Kf2 Re7 95. Rf4+ Kd3 96. Rf5 Rd7 97. Rf4
Rd8 98. Rf5 Kd2 99. Rf4 Bb3 100. Rf6 Bc2 101. Rf7 Bd3 102. Re7 Bc4 103. Re4 Rc8
104. Kg3 Bd3 105. Re7 Rc2 106. Re8 Kd1 107. Re7 Bf1 108. Rd7+ Ke1 109. Re7+ Be2
110. Kg2 Rc8 111. Rg7 Rf8 112. Rg3 Bd1 113. Rh3 Ke2 114. Rh4 Ke3 115. Re4+ Kd3
116. Re7 Bxf3+ 117. Kg3 Be4 118. Kg4 Ke3 119. Kg5 Rf1 120. Rc7 Rf5+ 121. Kg4
Ra5 122. Re7 Ra6 123. Rg7 Ra5 124. Re7 Rb5 125. Rg7 Bf3+ 126. Kg3 Rb1 127. Rg5
Be4 128. Rg4 Bf5 129. Rg5 Ke4 130. Kh4 Rh1+ 131. Kg3 Rh3+ 132. Kf2 Kf4 133. Rg8
Rh7 134. Rf8 Rh2+ 135. Ke1 Ke4 136. Kd1 Kd3 137. Ke1 Ke4 138. Kd1 Rf2 139. Ke1
Rg2 140. Kd1 Kd3 141. Ke1 Be4 142. Rf2 Rg1+ 143. Rf1 Rg8 144. Rf2 Re8 145. Rd2+
Ke3 146. Re2+ Kf4 147. Kf2 Rh8 148. Rd2 Rh1 149. Re2 Rh3 150. Rd2 Bd3 151. Ke1
Re3+ 152. Kd1 Rf3 153. Kc1 Ke3 154. Rh2 Rf1+ 155. Kb2 Kd4 156. Rh4+ Be4 157.
Kb3 Rb1+ 158. Ka4 Rb8 159. Rg4 Kd5 160. Ka3 Ke5 161. Rh4 Kd4 162. Rg4 Rb1 163.
Ka2 Rb5 164. Ka3 Kc3 165. Rg3+ Kc4 166. Rg4 Rb3+ 167. Ka2 Re3 168. Kb2 Re2+
169. Ka3 Kc3 170. Ka4 Bd3 171. Ka5 Re6 *