Yes you are quite right, this ending is highly unpleasant for black.

Nice piece of analysis, well done.

Tops

Matemax wrote on 01/23/08 at 11:51:29:


Is this clearly winning for White? After 20.Bxd5+ it looks like he remains the exchange down for a pawn and the game continues.
What am I missing?

Toppy

19.Qh5

a) 19...Qg6 20.Bd5 (white remains at least a pawn up with a better position)

b) 19...Kf6 20.Kg1! - and I hope I made this move work, there are many branches ...

I got in contact with NIC about 2 weeks ago and they are interested to bring it in the "forum" of YB 86 (even with a photograph of me  )). Until now they did not come up with additional questions to the analysis but promised me to have a critical look.

Matemax wrote on 01/22/08 at 18:38:13:

You're right, that looks very strong.

Matemax wrote on 12/27/07 at 08:29:54:

Just one point: White can play 19. Bd4 before capturing on f3 as then the black rook can't go to e8 and after, say, 18. f3 exf3 19. Bd4 Rd8 20. Nxf3 b5 21. Bc2 Bd5 there is no threat of ...Re2 to worry about, so White can simply play the immediate 22. Kg3, gaining a tempo should Black play 22...Re8.

Not according to my sources (Euwe and Pachman). After 4.0-0 Nxe4 5.d4 exd4 6.Re1 d5 the latter recommends the extra option 7.Qxd4 +- but I don't find that too convincing.

In the YB column the authors state: "With the new defensive ideas presented here, the endgame doesn't seem to promise White much."  And they are correct, for they basically neglected to show White's most critical moves.  They do not mention it in their notes, but they include it in game Nispeanu-Dumittrache, the key area of neglect being found in the old "Capablanca line" at white move #17:

15. Be3 f5
16. Nc3 Ke7
17. Bb3  

Which is very strong for white to play the Bishop move BEFORE playing g4.  This forces Black King to a white square to avoid the bone-crunching, piece activating move N check on d5.

From my own games (as Black) I have not been able to hold this position against humans or computers and have found it to be much easier to win as white.  

17. .... Kf7  (perhaps Bxb3 should be played here and this is the first place to look for ways to improve Black's (slim) chances.)

18. Bxe6  Kxe6  
19. g4  g6 (?!)

Another move where Black needs find something better, but what are the alternmatives, taking on g4?.  Also, here White has options to play the B to f4 forcing Black's rook passively defend the c pawn.  Once those White minor pieces get into play, they are stronger than the rook.  

It is here in the Nispeanu game that the authors suggest:

18.  ...  fg4
19 Ne4  Bb3
20. ab   b6
21. Ra4 h5
22. Rc4 c5
23. b4   cb
24. Bb6 a5
and claim equality.

First off, move 22, white can improve with 22 Nc3.  Second, their resulting claim of equality seems hard to prove after White plays 25. Kg3.  I just do not see it, nor can I hold this position against players of equal strength.  The fact that White has THREE pieces against Black's TWO means that White can bring more fire-power to bear on weaknesses and at some point Black cannot mathematically defend.


Another critical idea for white is to not exchange the g pawn, but instead push it to g5 as shown in the recent J. Benjamin column:

http://main.uschess.org/content/view/8112/341/

Why open the file for the Black rook?  Better is to get the White King active in the center before making any exchanges that could leave his majesty stuck on the h-file if that rook gets to g8.

And lastly, as stated above, 8.Bg5 is a most promising line for white, and is somewhat annoying because it is not at all what Black has in mind when (s)he plays the Riga.  


Caveat: Despite all this, I play the Riga regularly as Black and have excellent results with it but I believe it is only because I am taking advantage of White's ingnorance of how to maintain their winning chances/advantage.  I have no doubt that some improvements can be found for both sides and I think this opening can remain "playable" and very fun, but I do not think it will ever be proved to be "safe" or "solid" or lead to equality.

Quote:

In the game analyses to Mate-Pinter they give the following moves:
15.c3 f5 16.Be3 g6 (Ke7?! was played in the game) 17.Nd2 Kc8 18.f3 exf3 19.Nxf3 b5 20.Bc2 Re8 21.Bd4 Bd5 with equality:



Its hard to believe white has serious winning chances here - I would feel very comfortable with black

Playing 16.Bg5 doesnt change much - it just looks like a useless check, as black will play Kc8 anyway.

I think the endgame is overestimated for white and tends to equality - I think 8.Bg5 ist much more a threat to blacks ambitions - Here the recommendations of Boll/Talsma are probably on very thin ice. At last dont forget 8.c4.

TO ADD (!):

I took some time to analyse 8.Bg5 (game Avrum-Medveski or may I say Comp1-Comp2 with support? ) and think the RIGAER is BUSTED! - The refutation starts with 16.Re1 (instead of 16.Bh6 as played in the game) - I am also a bit shocked that Boll/Talsma dont give anything to 16.Re1  - they also only follow the comp-lines. Somehow we have a connection to the discussion "OTB vs CORR": http://www.chesspub.com/cgi-bin/yabb2/YaBB.pl?num=1197833426 - and this practical example does not favour the corr players 

You dont believe me? Well you dont have to - but give 16.Re1 yourself a try - I have no problem posting my analysis, if wanted