(UTC)
Latest Updates:
  ChessPub Forum › Other › Endgames › Rook Endings › Capablanca-Yates (Hastings, 1930)
(Moderator: trw)
‹ Previous Topic | Next Topic ›
Page Index Toggle Pages: 1 [2] 
Topic Tools
Hot Topic (More than 10 Replies) Capablanca-Yates (Hastings, 1930) (Read 24688 times)
Poghosyan
Full Member
***
Offline


I Love ChessPublishing!

Posts: 143
Joined: 10/15/11
Re: Capablanca-Yates (Hastings, 1930)
Reply #6 - 05/22/12 at 18:08:17
Post Tools
Here is the pgn-file of Carls-Matisons
  
Carls-Matisons.pgn ( 1 KB | Downloads )
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Poghosyan
Full Member
***
Offline


I Love ChessPublishing!

Posts: 143
Joined: 10/15/11
Re: Capablanca-Yates (Hastings, 1930)
Reply #5 - 05/22/12 at 18:07:00
Post Tools
Thanks Micawber for the appreciation and suggestions! The suggestions of Micawber give me a welcome opportunity to come back to the position before the move 61.Rb6 since my primarily aim was to show that 61.Rb6 was not a result-changing mistake as supposed by the theory before my findings. Now I can deal with the best move 61.Rd6. This move was suggested by Kopayev in his analysis of the game Duras-Capablanca (1913) (Shakhmatny Byulleten, n.9-1956, p. 266-267 and 1. Russian edition of Averbakh handbook, p.334-336). Kopayev proved the win for White with concrete lines so I have mentioned the game Nikolic-Ftacnik only as a practical example where the move Rd6 has been played in a real game (not as a good example). As Micaweber rightly points out there are serious flaws in that game. The most interesting thing about that and other games is that some of the result-changing mistakes were already indicated in the analysis of Kopayev so the knowledge of it by the players would have prevented the mistakes. Ftacnik also failed to assess the position correctly in his annotations. It is a bit strange that Averbakh has skipped the valuable analysis of Kopayev in the 2. edition of his handbook. Speelman seems to be aware of the analysis of Kopayev and in BCE he repeats mainly the lines of Kopayev with slight modifications. Even John Nunn, an acclaimed endgame authority, did not notice the numerous mistakes of the players in Nikolic-Ftacnik in his Understanding Chess Endgames (p. 129). John Emms analysis also implies that both sides played accurately throughout the ending, at least after 47.e5 (The Survival Guide to Rook Endings, 1. edit., p. 77-78). Unfortunately I am not familiar with the work of van Wijgerden,  Toreneindspelen, 1980, so I can not judge about his analysis. As I will show in conclusion the ideas of Kopayev will be useful for the analysis of the lines suggested by Micawber.

Since there is practically no difference in the positions of Duras-Capablanca 1913  (rev. col.) and Nikolic-Ftacnik 1997 (after 54…Ra1) I shall begin with the game Duras-Capablanca.   

D. 9

* * * * * * * *
* * * * * * * *
* * * * * * * *
* * * * * * * *
* * * * * * * *
* * * * * * * *
* * * * * * * *
* * * * * * * *
*

Duras-Capablanca 1913 (rev. col.)

1...Rb4+

In Nikolic-Ftacnik the Black rook gives check from a4.

2.Rd4 Rb1

D. 10

* * * * * * * *
* * * * * * * *
* * * * * * * *
* * * * * * * *
* * * * * * * *
* * * * * * * *
* * * * * * * *
* * * * * * * *
*

Capablanca played here 3.f5? (D. 18). Kopayev proved in1956 that this is a result-changing error. The same mistake has been committed in Carls-Matisons (1928), Nikolic-Ftacnik (1997) and Smeets-Wiersma (2003), but the weaker side failed to make use of them. The drawback of the immediate advance of the pawn to f5 is that it gives the Black king the possibility to come out to the e-file and to take active part in the game. The right plan is according to Kopayev to push the f-pawn to the 5th rank only after transferring the rook to the eighth rank, not earlier. In that way the Black’s king which is restricted in his mobility not only by White pieces but also by his own pawns is shut out of the game.

I. Kopayev suggested the move 3.Ra4 and analysed for Black the move 3…Rg1.

1) After 3…Rg1 4.Kf3 Kopayev prefers the move 4…Rb1 because it leaves open the option for both flank and rear checks. If Black instead of 4…Rb1 plays 4…Rf1+ then it transposes to the line of Micawber, D. 15  after 4.Kf3 Rf1+.

D. 11

* * * * * * * *
* * * * * * * *
* * * * * * * *
* * * * * * * *
* * * * * * * *
* * * * * * * *
* * * * * * * *
* * * * * * * *
*

a) 5.Ra8!

The best move which implements White’s plan – Re8 and f4-f5. 5.Ra7?! (b) is weaker although it does not throw away the win.

5…Rf1+

Kopayev comments that after the rear checks Black loses more quickly because after the transfer of the White king to h4 Black can not prevent the advance of the pawn to f5.

6.Ke3 Re1+

6...Rg1is weaker -  7.f5 Rxg4 8.f6+ Kh7 9.e6+-

7.Kf2 Re4 8.Kf3 Re1 9.Ra7!

D. 12

* * * * * * * *
* * * * * * * *
* * * * * * * *
* * * * * * * *
* * * * * * * *
* * * * * * * *
* * * * * * * *
* * * * * * * *
*

White can play this move because Black rook is deprived of the possibility to give flank checks (compare with the line b) 5.Ra7?! below). Now Black is in zugzwang. White persuades the black rook to stop its observation of the e-pawn (Speelman). Speelman analysis this position with the rook on b-file (BCE, p. 288 after 9.Rb7!) which does not make any difference. He follows mainly the analysis of Kopayev.

Kopayev demonstrated that 9.Re8? lets slip the win. 9...h5 10.gxh5 (10.g5 Rf1+ 11.Ke3 h4 12.Ra8 h3 13.Ra2 Kg6 14.Rh2 (14.Ra6+ Kf5 15.Rh6 h2 16.Rxh2 Rxf4) 14...Kf5). Speelman showed that Black draws also after 9...Rf1+ 10.Ke3 (10.Kg3 Rg1+) 10...h5 11.g5 h4 12.Ra8 h3 13.Ra2 Kg6=).

9…Kf8

Black tries to keep his rook on e-file.

9...Rf1+ 10.Ke4 Re1+ 11.Kd5 Rg1 12.f5 Rxg4 13.e6+-
9...Rb1 10.e6 Kf6 11.exf7 Kg7 12.Ra6 Rb8 13.Kg3 Rf8 14.Kh4 Rxf7 15.f5 Rb7 16.Kh5+-
Speelman demonstrated that Black loses also after 9…Rh1 (see the pgn-file).

10.Ra4

After this move White king drives the black rook away from e-file. 

10…Rb1

10...Kg7 11.Kf2 transposes to the next line after 6.Kf2.

11.Ra8+ Ke7 12.Ra6 Rh1 13.Ke4 h5 14.g5 h4 15.Rh6 h3 16.Kf3 h2 17.Kg2+-. 


b) 5.Ra7?!

D. 13

* * * * * * * *
* * * * * * * *
* * * * * * * *
* * * * * * * *
* * * * * * * *
* * * * * * * *
* * * * * * * *
* * * * * * * *
*

5…Rb3+ 6.Kf2 Rb2+

Now White can transpose to the known line in Capablanca-Yates by 7.Ke3 Rb3+ 8.Ke4 Rb4+ 9.Kf5 (see D. 2 with White rook on b7 and Black rook on c4). But White has also another possibility.

7.Kg3 Rb3+ 8.Kh4 Re3

Kopayev ends his analysis here and remarks that with his rook on 7th rank White is not able to push forward his f-pawn. Speelman shows in BCE, Diagram 82b, p. 287-288, that White still wins by returning back to the plan of transferring the rook to the 8th rank. 

D. 14

* * * * * * * *
* * * * * * * *
* * * * * * * *
* * * * * * * *
* * * * * * * *
* * * * * * * *
* * * * * * * *
* * * * * * * *
*

9.Ra8 Re1 10.Rb8

10.Kg3 is also winning. Black can try 10...h5 but it fails to 11.g5 Re3+ 12.Kf2 Rb3 13.f5 Rb2+ 14.Kg3 Rb3+ 15.Kh4 Rf3 16.e6 fxe6 17.f6+.

10...Rh1+ 11.Kg3 Rg1+ 12.Kf3 Re1 13.Rb7+-

See the line 5.Ra8 after 9.Ra7! (D. 12).

2) 3...Re1+

This move was played in Carls-Matisons (1928).

D. 15

* * * * * * * *
* * * * * * * *
* * * * * * * *
* * * * * * * *
* * * * * * * *
* * * * * * * *
* * * * * * * *
* * * * * * * *
*

A) 4.Kf3!

Caels played 4.Kf5?! (B).

4…Rf1+

4...h5 does not help - 5.g5 (not 5.gxh5? Rh1 6.Kg4 Rg1+ 7.Kf5 Rh1=) 5...Rg1 6.Ra6 h4 7.Rh6 Rg3+ 8.Ke4 h3 9.Kf5 Ra3 10.Kg4+-.

5.Kg2 Re1

5...Rb1 6.Ra8 Rb3 7.Re8 Re3 8.Kf2 Re4 9.Kf3 Re1 Transposition to the analysis of Kopayev in Capablanca-Yates - 10.f5 Rf1+ 11.Ke2 Rxf4 12.Ke3 Rg4 13.f6+ Kh7 14.e6+-. 

6. Kf2 Rb1 7.Ra8

D. 16

* * * * * * * *
* * * * * * * *
* * * * * * * *
* * * * * * * *
* * * * * * * *
* * * * * * * *
* * * * * * * *
* * * * * * * *
*

Kopayev analyses this important position in Shakhmatny Byulleten  n. 8-1956, p. 229, after 64.Rb8!

7…h5

Kopayev notes that now flank checks are not dangerous because the king hides on h4. Indeed, after 7...Rb2+ 8.Kg3 Rb3+ 9.Kh4 Black can not prevent f4-f5. If 9...Re3 or 9...Rb5 then 10.Re8 followed by 11.f5.

9.g5 Rb3

9...h4 10.Kf3+-

10.f5 Rb5 11.f6+ Kh7

11...Kg6 12.Rg8+ Kf5 (12...Kh7 13.Rg7+ Kh8 14.Rxf7 Rxe5 15.g6 Kg8 16.Kf3 Rf5+ 17.Ke4 Rf1 18.Ke5 Re1+ 19.Kf5) 13.g6+-

12.Rf8 Rxe5

12...Rb7 13.Rxf7++-

13.Rxf7+ Kh8

13...Kg8 14.Rg7+ Kh8 15.Kf3+-

14.g6+-

B) 4.Kf5?!

This move played in Carls-Matisons (1928) does not make much sense.

4... Ra1 5.Rc4 Rb1 6.Ke4 Re1+ 7.Kd5?!

As we already know the right direction is 7.Kf3. 

7...Rd1+ 8.Rd4?

A mistake which allows Black to draw.

8...Rg1 9.f5 Re1

The best move is 9...Kf8 (Micawber). Now if 10.e6 then 10…Ke7 11.exf7 Kxf7. 10.Kd6 trasnsposes to Duras-Capablanca  D 18 after 3.f5? Rg1? 4.Kd5? Kf8! 5.Kd6).   

D. 17

* * * * * * * *
* * * * * * * *
* * * * * * * *
* * * * * * * *
* * * * * * * *
* * * * * * * *
* * * * * * * *
* * * * * * * *
*

10.Kd6 Re2?

After this Black can not save the game. The only move to draw is 10...Kf8. After 11.e6 we transpose to D. 19 – the position is drawn whoever moves first.

Black can not save the game by 10...Ra1 11.Rc4 Ra6+ 12.Rc6 Ra8 13.Rc7 Kf8 14.Kd7 (14.e6?!+- fxe6 15.fxe6 Ra6+ 16.Rc6! Ra8 17.Rc7 Ra6+ 18.Ke5 Ra1 19.Kf6 Rf1+ 20.Kg6 Rg1 21.e7+ Ke8 22.Rc4 Rh1 23.Kf6 Rf1+ 24.Kg7 Rh1 25.Rc6 Rg1 26.Rg6+-) 14...Kg7 15.Ke7 Rb8 16.e6 fxe6 17.Kxe6++-. 

11.Rc4 Ra2 12.Rc7 Kf8

12...Ra6+ transposes to Nikolic-Ftacnik (D. 20 after 7...Ra6+).

13.Rc8+ Kg7 14.f6+ Kh7 15.e6! 1–0

to be continued
  
Duras-Capablanca.pgn ( 4 KB | Downloads )
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: Capablanca-Yates (Hastings, 1930)
Reply #4 - 05/19/12 at 18:12:29
Post Tools
Before  i continue my analysis I have another question about the poghesyan analysis.
The final position of Kopaevs analysis in the long variation after
65.Rb7,Kg8! 66.Rb3,Kg7 67.Re3,Rb4 68.Re4,Rb1 69.Rd4,Rf1 70.Rd7,Kg7 71.Ke4
(Kopaevs line from 1956/58) ends in the following position that is given as winning for White:

* * * * * * * *
* * * * * * * *
* * * * * * * *
* * * * * * * *
* * * * * * * *
* * * * * * * *
* * * * * * * *
* * * * * * * *
*

I wonder how white wins against
71.......Re1+

A) 72.Kf5,Rf1!=
repeats the position after move 70 (so white made no progress)

B) 72.Kd5,h5!  (72....Kf8 draws as well imo)
    73.gxh,
    (73.g5,Rd1+ 74.Kc6,Rxd7 75.Kxd7,h4=)
    73......., Rd1+
    74. Kc6 ,Rc1+  (74....Rf1 75Rd8,Kg7 76.Rf4 +/-)
    75. Kd6 ,Rf1=

C) 72.Kf3,Kf8!  (72....Rf1+ draws as well imo)
    I have not found a winning line for white from this position.
  
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: Capablanca-Yates (Hastings, 1930)
Reply #3 - 05/18/12 at 15:32:42
Post Tools
Thx Poghesyan for a fine piece of analyses and a useful correction of theory. I have two small additions.
You mention the game Nikolic-Fatcnik, as a good example. But there is a serious flaw in that game. Black could have drawn applying analysis available from another Capablanca game (Duras-Capablanca). The drawing method was documented both by van Wijgerden (Toreneindspelen/1980) and by Speelman (BCE/1993; diagram 83e).
Mind the varations are a bit rough so there may be a small slipup here and there but the idea about f5,Kf8! should be clear. Suddenly White no longer has a nice shelter on e7. And the Black king wants to occupy e7 or even d7 when possible.



Secondly I have an alternative suggestion on Kopaevs saving move. Instead of ..Ra4+. Kf5,Rc4 (kopaev) black could play Ra4. Kf5,Ra5! pinning the e-pawn. Imo White has nothing better than to play Kf5-e4 again.
And White needs a new plan. I will provide some analysis tomorrow.
* * * * * * * *
* * * * * * * *
* * * * * * * *
* * * * * * * *
* * * * * * * *
* * * * * * * *
* * * * * * * *
* * * * * * * *
*

64.Kf5,Ra5 (iso Rc4)
or even
64.Kf5,Rc4 65.Rb7,Rc5

A sample of what is on my mind.
64.Kf5,Ra5
65.Ke4,Ra4+
66.Ke3,Ra1 (to answer e6 with Re1+)
67.f5,  Ra3+
Have to order the variations and check them though.....
« Last Edit: 05/18/12 at 18:01:29 by micawber »  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Poghosyan
Full Member
***
Offline


I Love ChessPublishing!

Posts: 143
Joined: 10/15/11
Re: Capablanca-Yates (Hastings, 1930)
Reply #2 - 05/13/12 at 06:56:33
Post Tools
I have attached the pgn-file which is more detailed.
  
Capablanca-Yates_003.pgn ( 9 KB | Downloads )
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
proustiskeen
God Member
*****
Offline


Hello from Omaha!

Posts: 678
Joined: 08/11/08
Re: Capablanca-Yates (Hastings, 1930)
Reply #1 - 05/12/12 at 13:54:09
Post Tools
.pgn? Smiley
  
Back to top
WWW  
IP Logged
 
Poghosyan
Full Member
***
Offline


I Love ChessPublishing!

Posts: 143
Joined: 10/15/11
Capablanca-Yates (Hastings, 1930)
05/12/12 at 13:38:07
Post Tools

D. 1

* * * * * * * *
* * * * * * * *
* * * * * * * *
* * * * * * * *
* * * * * * * *
* * * * * * * *
* * * * * * * *
* * * * * * * *
*

The famous ending Capablanca-Yates (Hastings, 1930) is „one of the grandest in the entire chess literature“ (Chernev). Casablanca’s technique was so impressive and instructive that Chernev wrote: “It offers more instruction in strategy and tactics than the student will discover in a dozen brilliant King-side attacks”. Later on the analysts demonstrated that both sides committed some result-changing errors.

Capablanca played here 61.Rb6 which has been regarded by Kopayev in 1958 as a serious slip which should have thrown away the win. Since then the theory believes that after 61.Rb6 the position is drawn. As I will show, White can still win but the move 61. Rd6! suggested by Kopayev is of course better because it provides the White king shelter from sideways checks (see the game Nicolic-Ftacnik 1997).

61.Rb6?! 

Kopayev analysed this position first 1956 and believed that this was a dubious move which allows Black to provide for more resistance. But in the 1. edition of the Averbakh endgame handbook he changed his mind and tried to prove that Black can make a draw. In the 2. edition of the book Averbakh has just repeated Kopayev`s analysis after 61.Rb6 Ra4.    

61...Ra4!

Kopayev believed that this move saves Black. In the game Yates played 61...Re3? which is weaker.

62.Kf3

62.Kg3 Ra3+ 63.Kh4 Ra4 64.f5 Ra5 65.e6 fxe6 66.fxe6 Kf6= Kopayev

62...Ra3+ 63.Ke4 Ra4+ 64.Kf5 Rc4 65.Rb7

D 2

* * * * * * * *
* * * * * * * *
* * * * * * * *
* * * * * * * *
* * * * * * * *
* * * * * * * *
* * * * * * * *
* * * * * * * *
*

Now we have reached a critical position. White threatens e5-e6 thus Black has to move away its king either to f8 or to g8. 

I. 65...Kf8

D 3

* * * * * * * *
* * * * * * * *
* * * * * * * *
* * * * * * * *
* * * * * * * *
* * * * * * * *
* * * * * * * *
* * * * * * * *
*

According to the theory this move of Kopayev secures the draw. «White missed the correct way: he has brought his king, not his pawn, to f5, so he cannot win anymore» (Dvoretsky). 

66.e6!!

Nevertheless, White pushes forward his pawn!

66...fxe6+ 67.Ke5

Black loses because of his pawn on e6 which gets in the way and turns a drawn position into a loss. It proves a handicap by blocking vital sideways checks. We will analyse the position without e6-pawn in the line 67…Rc5+ 68.Ke6?

67...Kg8

Black prevents Rh7. Other moves are not better. If 67…Rc5+ then 68.Kf6. The greedy 68.Ke6? throws away the win because the White king does not have a shelter any more.

D 4

* * * * * * * *
* * * * * * * *
* * * * * * * *
* * * * * * * *
* * * * * * * *
* * * * * * * *
* * * * * * * *
* * * * * * * *
*

Black draws now by 68…Rc6+ 69.Kf5 Ra6 70.Ke4 Kg8 71.Kf3 Ra1 or 68…Rc4 69.Kf5 Rc6. 

68.Re7 Ra4 69.Rxe6 Kg7 

D 5

* * * * * * * *
* * * * * * * *
* * * * * * * *
* * * * * * * *
* * * * * * * *
* * * * * * * *
* * * * * * * *
* * * * * * * *
*

The theory has considered such kind of positions with the black pawn on the sixth rank as relatively safe for the defending side but in this particular position White wins. 

70.Re7+! Kf8 71.Rd7! Kg8

71...Ra5+ 72.Ke6 Ra4 73.f5 Ke8 74.Rd5  Rxg4 75.Ra5 Re4+ 76.Kf6 h5 77.Ra8+ Kd7 78.Rh8 h4 79.Kf7 Re7+ 80.Kg6 Re1 81.Rxh4+-.

71...Rb4 72.Rd4 Rb1 73.Ke6 Kg7 74.Rd7+ Kg8 75.f5 Rb6+ 76.Rd6 Rb1 77.f6+-.

72.Rd4 Ra1 73.Ke6 h5

Black has no real choice. If 73...Ra6+ then 74.Rd6 Ra4 75.Rd8+ Kg7 76.Rd7+ Kg8 77.Kf5 Ra4 78.Kg6 Kf8 79.Rf7+ Kg8 80.Rf6+-. 

74.g5 Kg7 75.Rd6 Rb1

75...Ra7 76.f5 Rb7 77.Rd4 Ra7 78.Ke5 Rb7 79.Kf4 Ra7 80.g6 Kh6 81.Re4+- 

76.Rc6 Kg6 77.Ke5+ Kg7 78.f5 Rb5+ 79.Ke6 Rb7 80.Rc4 Ra7 81.Ke5+-

II. 65...Kg8

1) This move of Speelman effectively prevents 66.e6?: after 66…fxe6+ 67.Ke5 Rc5+ the move  68.Kf6 gives nothing because of 68…Rc4. White has to take the pawn - 68.Kxe6. 

D 6

* * * * * * * *
* * * * * * * *
* * * * * * * *
* * * * * * * *
* * * * * * * *
* * * * * * * *
* * * * * * * *
* * * * * * * *
*

This position is similiar to D 4 but here Black has only one drawing move. 

68...Rc6+

68…Rc4? loses because the Black king is on g8 and does not protect the e7-square: 69.Kf5 Rc6 70.Ke7! 

69.Kf5

69.Ke5 Rc5+ 70.Ke4 Ra5 (70...h5 71.g5 h4 72.Rb3+-) 71.f5 Ra4+ 72.Kf3 Ra3+ 73.Kf4 Ra4+ 74.Kg3 Ra1 75.Re7= Kuzminykh in Shakhmatny Biulleten, n. 6–1983, s. 5, d. 15 after 3.Re7.

69...Kf8!

The only move as White was threatening 70.Re7! After 69...Kf8! we transpose to the position of Levenfish/Smyslov, n. 164, Black to play, after 1…Ra3 2.g4 Ra6 (with the insignificant difference that the
Black rook is on a6).

70.Rd7 Rb6 71.Ke5 Rg6! 72.g5

If 72.f5 then simply 72…Rxg4 73.Kf6 Kg8=.

72...hxg5 73.f5 Rg7!=

2) White can try to implement the idea e5-e6 after some preparation but Black is able to hold the position.

66.Rd7 Ra4 67.e6 fxe6+ 68.Ke5 h5!

If 68...Ra5+ 69.Kxe6 (69.Kf6 Ra4) 69...Ra4 (or 69...Ra6+ 70.Rd6 Ra4 71.Kf5 transposes) 70.Kf5 Kf8 71.Rd6 Kg7 72.Rg6+! Kh7 73.Re6 Kg7 T74.Re7+ Kf8 (74...Kg8 75.Kg6!) 75.Re4 Ra6 76.Re6 Ra7 77.Kg6 Rg7+ 78.Kh5 and wins. 

69.g5 h4 70.Re7! h3

If 70...Ra6 71.Kf6! threatens 72.Re8+ and 73.g6+ and 74.Rh8 mate.

71.Rxe6 Ra7! 72.Re8+ Kg7 73.Kf5 h2 74.Re1 Ra2 75.Rh1 Rg2 76.Ke4 Kg6 77.Kf3 Ra2 78.Kg3 Kf5 79.Rxh2 Ra3+ 80.Kh4 Ra1!=

All this is the analysis of Speelman which is impressively accurate.

3) 66.Rb3

Since the position of the king on f5 is useless White prepares to move back his king and bring his pawn to f5. In order to do that White should drive the Black rook from the forth rank.   

66…Kg7

Now we have transposed to the analysis of Kopayev of 1956 and 1958.

67.Re3 Rc6

Improvement of Kopayev from 1958 instead of 67... Rb4. Black’s rook leaves the forth rank voluntarily in order to defend his h-pawn and move his king to e7. Kopayev believed that 67…Rc6 draws but in fact White’s position is still winning.

67...Rb4 can not prevent the White’s plan:  67...Rb4 68.Re4 Rb1 69.Rd4 Rf1 70.Rd7 Kg8 71.Ke4. Kopayev, Shakhmatny Biulleten, n. 8–1956, p. 229. If 69...Re1 then 70.Rd7 Re2 71.Re7 Ra2 72.e6 Ra5+ 73.Ke4 Ra4+ 74.Kf3 Ra3+ 75.Kg2 Kf6 76.Rxf7+ Kxe6 77.Rh7+-.

68.Ke4 Rc4+ 69.Kf3 Rc6

D 7

* * * * * * * *
* * * * * * * *
* * * * * * * *
* * * * * * * *
* * * * * * * *
* * * * * * * *
* * * * * * * *
* * * * * * * *
*

According to Kopayev this position is drawn because 70.f5 fails to 70…Kf8 71.Ra3 Rc1 72.Ra8+ Ke7 73.f6+ Ke6 74.Re8+ Kd5 75.e6 Rc6 =. 

But the position is in fact winning.

A) 70.Ra3 f6 71.Ra7+ Kf8

Here Kopayev considered only 72.Ke4? which leads to an easy draw after 72…fxe5 73.Kxe5 Rb6 or 73.fxe5 Rc1 (Averbakh). Both Kopayev and Averbakh missed an easy win by 72.exf6 (found independently by Dvoretsky and me)

72…Rxf6

D 8

* * * * * * * *
* * * * * * * *
* * * * * * * *
* * * * * * * *
* * * * * * * *
* * * * * * * *
* * * * * * * *
* * * * * * * *
*

73.Kg3 Kg8

73...Rb6 74.Kh4 Rb1 75.Kh5+-

74.Ra4 Kg7 75.Kh4 Rb6 76.Ra7+ Kg8 77.f5 Rc6 78.Kh5 Rb6 79.Re7 Ra6 80.Re6+-

B) 70.Kg3

This move was suggested by Speelman in Batsford Chess Endings but he seemed not to be sure that White was winning. After showing the drawbacks of immediate 70.f5 Speelman wrote: "White could try first 70.Kg3 Ra6 71.Rb3 and if 71...f6? 72.Rb7+ Kg8 73.exf6 Rxf6 74.Rb4! (not 74.f5? h5) 74...Kg7 75.Kh4 Ra6 76.Kh5 Ra5+ 77.f5 Ra1 78.Rb7+ Kf6 79.Rb6+ Kg7 80.Rg6+! and wins“.

70… Ra6 71.Rb3 Rc6 72.Rb8 Rc3+ 73.Kg2

We have now transposed to the winning line of Kopayev of 1958:

73...Re3 74.Re8 Re2+ 75.Kf3 Re1 76.f5 Rf1+ 77.Ke2 Rf4 78.Ke3 Rxg4 79.f6+ Kh7 80.e6+-

As we have seen the revision of the assessments of some positions with f- and g-pawns versus h-pawn was crucial for the correct analysis of this ending. 

To be continued in a new thread
« Last Edit: 05/13/12 at 07:02:39 by Poghosyan »  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Page Index Toggle Pages: 1 [2] 
Topic Tools
‹ Previous Topic | Next Topic ›
Bookmarks: del.icio.us Digg Facebook Google Google+ Linked in reddit StumbleUpon Twitter Yahoo
 
  « Board Index ‹ Board Top  

ChessPub Forum » Powered by YaBB 2.6.12!
YaBB Forum Software © 2000-2024. All Rights Reserved.

Valid RSS Valid XHTML Valid CSS Powered by Perl Source Forge