Latest Updates:
Page Index Toggle Pages: [1] 2 3 
Topic Tools
Very Hot Topic (More than 25 Replies) RookEndgame Hollis-Florian (Read 39599 times)
Poghosyan
Full Member
***
Offline


I Love ChessPublishing!

Posts: 143
Joined: 10/15/11
Re: RookEndgame Hollis-Florian
Reply #40 - 10/31/11 at 17:17:14
Post Tools
Thanks micawber!

Averbakh has definitely no publication on Hollis-Florian before 1981-1984 otherwise he would include it in the Russian original edition of vol. 5 of his endgame handbook dedicated to the rook endings. This volume came out in 1984. I have all his books in Russian and there is no mention on that endgame. I am very much inclined to believe that he indeed got acquainted with the analysis of Hollis in the British Chess Magazine and subsequently made his refutations in the Shakhmatny Bulleten in 1985. This may be also the reason why his analysis has been included in the German (Turmendspiele, Bd. 2, Berlin 1986, n. 308, p. 171-172) and English version of his rook endings handbook (1987, n. 750, p. 291) but not in the Russian original edition of 1984.   

So the question whether Averbakh knew about van Wijgerden's analysis of 1981 or found it independently cannot be answered directly with the date of the publication of his analysis. An indirect answer may be found in comparing his analysis with the analyses of van Wijgerden (1981) and of Hollis (1984). Unfortunately I have only the contribution of Averbakh, but not of van Wijgerden and of Hollis. 
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Zwischenzugzwang
Senior Member
****
Offline


I Love ChessPublishing
& chess pubs!

Posts: 380
Location: Zotzenbach
Joined: 06/14/11
Gender: Male
Re: RookEndgame Hollis-Florian
Reply #39 - 10/31/11 at 13:17:33
Post Tools
Paddy wrote on 02/17/11 at 12:48:00:

All in all, though, a real contribution - bravo Micawber!


I'll second that!  Smiley
  

What do people mean when they say "Chess is the pawn of the soul"?
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
micawber
God Member
*****
Offline


like many sneaks and skunks
in history he's a poet

Posts: 852
Location: Netherlands
Joined: 09/07/05
Gender: Male
Re: RookEndgame Hollis-Florian
Reply #38 - 10/31/11 at 03:51:17
Post Tools
Thx poghosyan,

Although the mystery remains, since I was looking for a publication by Averbakh prior to 1981, the year van Wijgerden published his analysis.
Without further evidence, it seems that van Wijgerden was the first to refute Hollis analysis,
and that there is no way of knowing whether Averbakh knew about van Wijgerden's analysis or found it independently.


  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Poghosyan
Full Member
***
Offline


I Love ChessPublishing!

Posts: 143
Joined: 10/15/11
Re: RookEndgame Hollis-Florian
Reply #37 - 10/30/11 at 14:29:17
Post Tools
To the question put by micawber in RookEndgame Hollis-Florian 10/09/10 at 13:00:27

Yu. Averbakh published his analyses of the game Hollis-Florian in 1985 in the "Shakhmatny Byulleten", nr. 10, 1985, p. 7-8. He refers in his contribution to the comments of Hollis in the “British Chess Magazine”.   
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Paddy
God Member
*****
Offline


The truth will out!

Posts: 965
Location: Manchester
Joined: 01/10/03
Gender: Male
Re: RookEndgame Hollis-Florian
Reply #36 - 02/17/11 at 12:48:00
Post Tools
micawber wrote on 02/17/11 at 07:03:48:
@ Stephan Buecker

Yes I think 3....Ke5 is a viable method, but I dont think there are publications about it. And your addition is very interesting.
Although in the case that White plays an early Rb8, Black will have to respond with Kd6/d5 when play again will converge with the Kantorovich/Dvoretzky lines.
I did notice that 3....Ke6 is also good for a draw, again much like the Kantorovich defence, but with some interesting independent variations.

Finally the pgn to accompany my final analysis on this endgame (accompanying my post from last week). Note that this is not in Muellers article, which refers to all analysis as completed by november 2010. I was kindly informed then that he planned an article on this endgame, but I did assume that he perhaps had reconsidered.



All in all, though, a real contribution - bravo Micawber!
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
micawber
God Member
*****
Offline


like many sneaks and skunks
in history he's a poet

Posts: 852
Location: Netherlands
Joined: 09/07/05
Gender: Male
Re: RookEndgame Hollis-Florian
Reply #35 - 02/17/11 at 07:03:48
Post Tools
@ Stephan Buecker

Yes I think 3....Ke5 is a viable method, but I dont think there are publications about it. And your addition is very interesting.
Although in the case that White plays an early Rb8, Black will have to respond with Kd6/d5 when play again will converge with the Kantorovich/Dvoretzky lines.
I did notice that 3....Ke6 is also good for a draw, again much like the Kantorovich defence, but with some interesting independent variations.

Finally the pgn to accompany my final analysis on this endgame (accompanying my post from last week). Note that this is not in Muellers article, which refers to all analysis as completed by november 2010. I was kindly informed then that he planned an article on this endgame, but I did assume that he perhaps had reconsidered.

  

Hollis_Florian_E.pgn ( 19 KB | Downloads )
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Matemax
God Member
*****
Offline


Chesspub gives you strength!

Posts: 1302
Joined: 11/04/07
Re: RookEndgame Hollis-Florian
Reply #34 - 02/16/11 at 12:16:19
Post Tools
Stefan Buecker wrote on 02/16/11 at 11:26:01:
Matemax wrote on 02/16/11 at 07:55:30:
Mr. Bücker now awakes Wilkins Micawber as a real person:
" W. Micawber from the Netherlands" (Bücker on chesscafe.com)

As already mentioned by proustiskeen, it was Karsten Müller, not me. Easy to confuse, perhaps, since we both have an Umlaut. 

I am very sorry about this - somehow it mixed up in my brain. But it seems you made a lasting impression on me! Smiley
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Stefan Buecker
God Member
*****
Offline



Posts: 1386
Location: Germany
Joined: 02/11/09
Gender: Male
Re: RookEndgame Hollis-Florian
Reply #33 - 02/16/11 at 11:26:01
Post Tools
Matemax wrote on 02/16/11 at 07:55:30:
Mr. Bücker now awakes Wilkins Micawber as a real person:
" W. Micawber from the Netherlands" (Bücker on chesscafe.com)

As already mentioned by proustiskeen, it was Karsten Müller, not me. Easy to confuse, perhaps, since we both have an Umlaut. 

In Hollis - Florian, after 1.Kf1 Rb2 2.Ke1 Kf6 3.f3 Rb3 4.Kd2, now we know that 4...Rxf3? loses, and "only Kantorovich's ingenious defensive method draws: 4...Ke6!! 5.Kc2 Rb5 6.Kc3 Rb1" (Müller). 

Black also draws after 3...Ke6 4.Kd1 f6 5.Kc1 Rb5 6.Kd2 g5. Perhaps trivial and similar to 4...Ke6. 

But there is also 3...Ke5!? 4.Kd1 Kd4 5.Kc1 Rb5 6.Rd7+ Ke3 7.b7 f5!, a line which has a somewhat different character (both 7...f6 and 7...Kxf3? lose). For example 8.f4 Kf3 9.Kc2 Kg4 10.Kc3 Rb1 11.Kc4 Kh3 12.Re7 Kg4 13.Kc5 Kxg3! (only now) 14.Kc6 Kxh4 15.Re1 Rxb7 16.Kxb7 Kg3 and draws. 

I understand that the authors are more interested to find the last moment where Black went wrong. But from a practical point of view it is also interesting to know that Black can defend in a more aggressive manner. Has 3...Ke5 been mentioned somewhere?
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Matemax
God Member
*****
Offline


Chesspub gives you strength!

Posts: 1302
Joined: 11/04/07
Re: RookEndgame Hollis-Florian
Reply #32 - 02/16/11 at 07:55:30
Post Tools
proustiskeen wrote on 02/16/11 at 04:06:36:
Congratulatoins to Micawber, who is cited extensively by Karsten Mueller in his February column for ChessCafe!  He, like all of us, was mightily impressed by the analysis of Hollis-Florian, and he devoted an entire column to it!

Well done Micawber!

http://www.chesscafe.com/mueller/mueller.htm

Mr. W. Micawber is certainly one of the most content based posters here - and I really enjoy reading his posts and again (and again) have to thank him for that!

Mr. Bücker now awakes Wilkins Micawber as a real person:
" W. Micawber from the Netherlands" (Bücker on chesscafe.com)
... which means he may be mentioned in chess books, articles etc. by this name

Anyway I dont know what Mr. Charles Dickens would have thougth about this
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wilkins_Micawber

Funny stuff - fiction comes alive!
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
proustiskeen
God Member
*****
Offline


Hello from Omaha!

Posts: 680
Joined: 08/11/08
Re: RookEndgame Hollis-Florian
Reply #31 - 02/16/11 at 04:06:36
Post Tools
Congratulatoins to Micawber, who is cited extensively by Karsten Mueller in his February column for ChessCafe!  He, like all of us, was mightily impressed by the analysis of Hollis-Florian, and he devoted an entire column to it!

Well done Micawber!

http://www.chesscafe.com/mueller/mueller.htm
  
Back to top
WWW  
IP Logged
 
micawber
God Member
*****
Offline


like many sneaks and skunks
in history he's a poet

Posts: 852
Location: Netherlands
Joined: 09/07/05
Gender: Male
Re: RookEndgame Hollis-Florian
Reply #30 - 02/09/11 at 17:11:22
Post Tools
@ rimy
I would like a firm quote on this, rather than an opinion  Wink

A final visit to Hollis-Florian

I already stated that an important part of my findings isnot new. The russian master I.Yavarev came to the same conclusions and published an article about his analysis in 2008. A fact I was not aware of.
The article in question is actually an internet article on the Russian website Chesspro:
http://www.chesspro.ru/_events/2008/tn.html
Earlier I wrote: “The article is mainly concerned with variation A and B1, and contains less detail. Also the winning method in variation B.1.y diverges at move 11. Variations B.1.x and B2 thru D are not considered in Yanvarev's article.”
Looking at this again this is not exactly true.
There actually is a connection between the article and my line D. 
Besides Yanvarev's article gave me an idea for an improvement over my previous analysis


* * * * * * * *
* * * * * * * *
* * * * * * * *
* * * * * * * *
* * * * * * * *
* * * * * * * *
* * * * * * * *
* * * * * * * *
*
My article centred here around 5.Rc7 to show a win. 
However Yanvarev gave the following sideline to 
5.Kc2,      Rf5? (5....Re3 draws)
6.Rc7,      Rb5
7.b7,      Ke6

8.Kc3,      Kd5!?
(In our posts we considered 8....f6 as the main line)
9.Rxf7,Rb6

Diagram 19
* * * * * * * *
* * * * * * * *
* * * * * * * *
* * * * * * * *
* * * * * * * *
* * * * * * * *
* * * * * * * *
* * * * * * * *
*

With a position very similar but not exactly equal to the positions in line D.

Diagram 20
* * * * * * * *
* * * * * * * *
* * * * * * * *
* * * * * * * *
* * * * * * * *
* * * * * * * *
* * * * * * * *
* * * * * * * *
*

This is a position from my line D.
The only difference is, that in the above diagram, White has the move, while in the diagram from Yanvarevs analysis,  it is Blacks move (after the continuation Rg7).

The above diagram provided the starting point for my variation D1. And I showed you in the previous posts that White wins with 

[b][11]Kd3,      Rb3+
[12]Kd2!
[/b]

One of my lines ran
[12]            Kd4

Now Yanvarev considered the position after 12...Kd4 by transposition. And he mistakenly evaluated it as a draw.

In my original analysis I showed that White actually does win after

[13]Rd7+!,      Kc4
[14]Ke2!! +-

The key move to make progress.
14.Rg7?, Kd4 Repeats the position after Blacks 12th move.
14.Rc7?,Kd5 15.Rg7 Repeats the position after White's 11th move.
----------------------------------------------------


Diagram 20 (repeated)
* * * * * * * *
* * * * * * * *
* * * * * * * *
* * * * * * * *
* * * * * * * *
* * * * * * * *
* * * * * * * *
* * * * * * * *
*

Now Yanvarevs analysis gave me an idea to streamline the winning process and cut out some of the more complex variations, especially line D1.y.3.



[11]Kd2!
This is the improvement over my old main line (iso 11.Kd3)
It cuts out the complicated win in var. D1.y.3.


After [11]Kd2 we have
Variation E1 [11]      Rb3
Variation E2 [11]      Kc4
Variation E3 [11]      Ke4!

Variation E1

[11]            Rb3
With this move we return to Yanvarevs lines.

[12]Rxg6!      (Yanvarev)

I also analysed this position but only considered that White could play the triangulation
12.Kc2,Rb6 13.Kd3 transposing to my old main line (position after 11.Kd3 iso 11.Kd2)

[12]            Rxb7
[12]....Rb2+?! [13]Ke3,Rxb7 only helps White, who now is a tempo up over the main line.
'
[13]Ke3!

In fact we have now reached a position that I gave as winning in line D1.y.1.
But the honours for first discovery of course go to Yanvarev.

Diagram 21
* * * * * * * *
* * * * * * * *
* * * * * * * *
* * * * * * * *
* * * * * * * *
* * * * * * * *
* * * * * * * *
* * * * * * * *
*

[13]            Rh7
[14]Kf4      Rh8
[15]Kf5      Rf8+!?


Here Yanvarevs line diverges from mine:
I gave here (in the pgn) [15]....Rh7 [16]Rg8!+-


[16]Kg5      Rh8
[17]Rh6      Rg8+!

Setting a nasty trap.
Diagram 22
* * * * * * * *
* * * * * * * *
* * * * * * * *
* * * * * * * *
* * * * * * * *
* * * * * * * *
* * * * * * * *
* * * * * * * *
*

[18]Kf6!
Note that White could have spoiled everything with 
[18]Kxh5??,Rxg3= draw

[18]            Rxg3
[19]Rxh5+      +-


A well known technical ending has appeared on the board. And although the Black king is no longer cut off along the rank, there is just too much distance between this monarch and the h-pawn to keep the draw.

[19]            Kd6!?
[20]Rf5!

Strangely enough the only winning move
After for instance [20]Rh8, Rf3+ [21]Kg6,Ke7!=
Blacks king is close enough to ensure a draw.
[20]            Kd7
[21]Kf7!      Rh3

[22]h5            Kd7
Note how White with his 20th to 22th move kept the Black king on the d-line.
[22]...Rh1 [23]Rf6+! followed by h5-h6.
[23]Rd5+
White puts as much distance between the Black king and the pawn as possible.

[23]            Kc6
[24]Rg5+
The main line is the winning line of Yanvarev's analysis of the sideline indicated at the top of the article.


Variation E2
diagram 20 repeated
* * * * * * * *
* * * * * * * *
* * * * * * * *
* * * * * * * *
* * * * * * * *
* * * * * * * *
* * * * * * * *
* * * * * * * *
*
[11]Kd2
[11]            Kc4

This is a position not considered in Yanvarevs analysis.

[12]Ke3
[12]Rxg6, Rxb7 [13]Ke3 wins as well. We have reached support position nr.4.

[12]            Kd5
[13]Kf4!      Kd4
[14]Rxg6      Rxb7
[15]Rg5!      Rh7

(Black last move is forced, otherwise White transposes to won endgame R+2p vs. R)

Diagram 23
* * * * * * * *
* * * * * * * *
* * * * * * * *
* * * * * * * *
* * * * * * * *
* * * * * * * *
* * * * * * * *
* * * * * * * *
*
[16]g4!

Variation E3
[11]            Ke4!
This is the most stubborn defence.
Again this position was not covered in Yanvarevs analysis.


[12]Rd7!
And now we have a further split

Variation E.3.x. [12]....Ke5
Variation E.3.y  [12]....Kf3


[u]Variation E3.x[/u]
[12]            Ke5

Diagram 24

* * * * * * * *
* * * * * * * *
* * * * * * * *
* * * * * * * *
* * * * * * * *
* * * * * * * *
* * * * * * * *
* * * * * * * *
*
[13]Kd3,      Ke6
On other moves White will continue Kc4!
[14]Rg7      Kd5
[15]Rxg6!

I showed in my previous analysis that 15.Ke3 wins as well (See line D.1.y.1). But 15.Rxg6 was in my original analysis as well.

[15]            Rxb7
[16]Ke3!

And we have transposed to variation E1 after white's 13th move (and are in fact also back in the side variation I gave in line D1.y.1.)




Variation E3.y
[12]            Kf3

This line has a connection with an allready previously presented piece of analysis: The refutation of Dvoretzky's drawing line against 5.Rc7.

diagram 25
* * * * * * * *
* * * * * * * *
* * * * * * * *
* * * * * * * *
* * * * * * * *
* * * * * * * *
* * * * * * * *
* * * * * * * *
*

[13]Kc2!!

The key move. White uses his rook on d7 for the indirect defence of the g-pawn. 
We have seen this method in line B.
(the refutation of Dvoretzky's drawing line see diagram 6 thru 8):


White threatens a side check, followed by posting his rook behind his own b-pawn.
Preferable when he can put his rook between the Black rook and the pawn.


[13]            Kg2

[13]...Kxg3? [14]Rd3+,Kxh4 [15]Rb3,Rxb7
([15]...Rc6+ [16]Kb2 +-)
[16]Rxb7 is a technical win.

[14]Rg7!
Now the g-pawn is truly immune. White gains time to move his king up the board.

[14]            Kh3

We have in fact transposed to line B.

[14]...Kxg3 [15]Rxg6+ with an attack on the b6-rook.

[14]...Rb5!?
(to evade that Rxg6 will attack Blacks rook)
[15]Kc3!,Kxg3!?
[16]Kc4!! wins ([16]Rxg6?+,Kxh4=)
This position was actually examined in line B.
See my correction post on Dvoretzky's drawing line.


[15]Kc3!      Rb1
[16]Kc4 +-

Diagram 6 repeated
* * * * * * * *
* * * * * * * *
* * * * * * * *
* * * * * * * *
* * * * * * * *
* * * * * * * *
* * * * * * * *
* * * * * * * *
*
[16]            Kxg3
[17]Rd7!!+-

Now white wins thx to the thread Rd3+ followed by Rb3.
[17]....Kxh4 [18]Rd4+,K? [19]Rb4 +-

Note that 
[17]Rxg6+?? (iso [17]Rd7) ,Kxh4= again leads to a draw.

And that is about all I have to say about this endgame.
I will post a pgn containing the final variations shortly.
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
rimy
YaBB Newbies
*
Offline


I Love ChessPublishing!

Posts: 2
Joined: 11/29/10
Re: RookEndgame Hollis-Florian
Reply #29 - 11/29/10 at 11:00:53
Post Tools
Averbakh published his analysis in a magazine between 1974 and 1980, and van Wijgerden copied this without mentioning Averbakh.
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Dink Heckler
God Member
*****
Offline


Love-Forty

Posts: 896
Joined: 02/01/07
Gender: Male
Re: RookEndgame Hollis-Florian
Reply #28 - 11/09/10 at 13:06:12
Post Tools
Fantastic work, Micawber; truly amazing.

  

'Am I any good at tactics?'
'Computer says No!'
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
micawber
God Member
*****
Offline


like many sneaks and skunks
in history he's a poet

Posts: 852
Location: Netherlands
Joined: 09/07/05
Gender: Male
Re: RookEndgame Hollis-Florian
Reply #27 - 11/07/10 at 10:41:26
Post Tools
I followed up on the suggestion from one of the previous poster to sent my analysis to M.Dvoretzky.
I got back a kind and complimentary answer from him with good and bad news.

The "bad" news first:
The findings are not newThe russian master I.Yavarev came to the same conclusions and published an article about his analysis in 2008. A fact I was not aware of.
The article in question is actually an internet article
on the Russian website Chesspro:
http://www.chesspro.ru/_events/2008/tn.html
The article is mainly concerned with variation A and B1, and contains less detail. Also the winning method in variation B.1.y diverges at move 11. Variations B.1.x and B2 thru D are not considered in Yanvarev's article.

Still the article is very interesting since it contains also analysis on the related endgame Aronian-Ivanchuck, Wijk aan Zee, 2008. 
An endgame I was actually planning to post with analyses myself in the near future (though I must reconsider that now).


The good news is, that the analysis and conclusions do not contain (major?!) errors. So those who followed my posts did not waste their time.
For myself, I certainly learned a bit about this type  endgame by analysing it.
For the forum members, the new analysis on this endgame is now accessible through the internet
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Girkassa
Senior Member
****
Offline


I Love ChessPublishing!

Posts: 433
Joined: 04/07/07
Re: RookEndgame Hollis-Florian
Reply #26 - 10/29/10 at 17:07:06
Post Tools
Micawber, if you will ever write an endgame book, please let me know!
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Page Index Toggle Pages: [1] 2 3 
Topic Tools
Bookmarks: del.icio.us Digg Facebook Google Google+ Linked in reddit StumbleUpon Twitter Yahoo