Markovich wrote on 05/06/10 at 13:58:28:


You mean from White's side? This was my thought also!

That's so simple and seemingly strong that I think I'll put it in my repertoire.

Yes, my move is h4. I agree with you about the propably drawn ending with practical chances. My main goal was not to prove anything for White. To do that i'd need many hours of analysis in a position that doesn't interest me. My main goal is to make my point that it is a lot easier for Black to choose the ...h6 variation instead of the ...Qa5 because it is a lot easier to memorise and play and in the end it may be the best theoritical coninuation! 

As for the book now, i haven't decided if i will mention aur game. I haven't analysed the other possibilities White had. Maybe i'll stop at 22.Re1!? or 22.Qxd4 with White being slightly better. I think that this is fair because += means a position that it is still drawn with best play. I still think that the best part of the book is the d4-pawn games and the Reti systems. The notes and the analysis i have been making so many years and the ideas i had discovered finally will see the light! I hope Marin will not refute my Reti ideas!

After 33.Ra7 as opposed to 33.b4, at least you get to keep the two rooks on.  Here's a basic flaw with the engines: you put in the 3 vs 2 ending with one Rook, and the engine will prefer that to an even endgame despite us agreeing that it's drawn.  

From what I can see, you have two ways of showing an advantage: a) show that 3 vs 2 with double rooks can win in some cases and b) force a winning 3 vs 2 ending with single rooks.

If you can't do that, I think the best you can say for white is that he has practical chances.  But I think the most accurate statement will end up being that White has easier play in a drawn endgame.

33....Rxb3

Was your conditional move 34.h4 then?

Thank you for your patience.  April is a busy time for me.  The summer should be easier if we continue this discussion that long.

Although Fritz recommends 32....Ra8, I find that a bit passive.  I'm going to play 32...Rb5 and reach the following position:

Forget it. We discovered the draw. And maybe your defensive plan is simpler. Passive defense should suffice. But still, i don't consider this king of endgame a success for Black. And in our game with Smyslov_fan i think i have ways to press for something more and avoid this 3 vs 2 scenario.

kylemeister wrote on 04/13/10 at 14:32:02:


No, don't get me wrong. I just say that having the h pawn instead of the e pawn does have some advantages (penetration at g6) and not only disadvantages (not a potentially passed pawn). The problem with email chess is that you don't feel the danger as you could do in OTB play. I don't consider anymore a theoritical success for Black to get these king of endings. No winning chances and many losing chances even if the defending side demonstrate a good technique. 

In Dvoretsky's endgme manual, Grivas' endgame books and Keres' old endgame book i don't see a referense to this particular ending. Maybe you can see in your sources and provide me with the right defensive plan for Black i have asked to be completely persuaded that this is drawn. I believe that this is drawn somehow but i don't know yet how!

I don't believe that "the endgame with e+f+g pawns against f+h pawns is a win as showed by Capablanca."
As far as I know it is drawn in the most general case; see e.g. the BCEs (Basic and Batsford).  You seem to be arguing that it is better for White to have an h-pawn than an e-pawn, which seems to be the opposite of established theory.