Latest Updates:
Hot Topic (More than 10 Replies) Capablanca-Yates (Hastings, 1930) (Read 19281 times)
Poghosyan V
YaBB Newbies
*
Offline


I Love ChessPublishing!

Posts: 14
Location: Armenia
Joined: 03/07/14
Gender: Male
Re: Capablanca-Yates (Hastings, 1930)
Reply #21 - 04/16/14 at 08:17:14
Post Tools
While analysing the endgame Capablanca-Yates and Capablanca-Duras in 2012 I found an alternative way to draw in a sideline of a similar position analysed by Kopayev in 1958. Since the new edition of ECE II under n. 1139 repeats his old analysis I have decided to put the correction in this thread.

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

Kopayev 1958, n. 259

After 1...Kf8! 2.Rb4 h5 3.g5 the move 3...h4 does not lose as supposed by Kopayev and ECE II.

After 4.f5 Black draws both by 4...Rg3 as well as by 4...Kg7.
  

Kopayev.pgn ( 2 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 #20 - 01/04/13 at 18:27:03
Post Tools
While analysing once again the games Capablanca-Yates (1930) and Duras-Capablanca (1913) I have found several improvements on the analysis of Capablanca-Yates and some serious mistakes in the analysis of Duras-Capablanca (as well as in the associated games).

Because of serious result-changing errors in the analysis of Duras-Capablanca (1913) I have decided to create a new thread - “Duras-Capablanca revisited” where I will provide for a new analysis of that game beginning with the 60. move. The most important discovery in that ending is Capablanca’s move 3.f5 does not throw away the win (as suggested by Kopayev and also uncritically accepted by me). The new thread will cover the subjects dealt with in my postings nn. 5-9, 13-14, 17 and 19.

The most important improvement on Capablanca-Yates is in the position of D. 4 after 68.Re7.

D. 4 after 68.Re7

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

In this position I have regarded only 68…Ra4. But Black has a stronger move which offers greater resistance - 68...Rc1.

D. 4a

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

Switching the rook to the rear of pawns is here more dangerous than flank pressing.

I. 69.Kxe6!

The only move to win. 69.Rxe6? (2) draws.

D. 4a1

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

1) 69...Rg1 70.f5!

Only giving up the g-pawn leads to win. After 70.Kf5 Rg2 or 70…Rg3 White can make no progress. It is interesting to note that in two practical games (Ljuboschitz-Conrady 2011 (rev. fl.) and Dory-Chereches 2008 (rev. col.) the defender failed to transfer his rook to g-file and lost (the attackers king was already on f5).

70…Rxg4 71.Re8+! Kh7 72.f6 Re4+ 73.Kd7! Rd4+ 74.Ke7 Re4+ 75.Kf8 Ra4 76.f7! Ra7 77.Rd8 Ra1 78.Ke8+-

2) 69...Kf8 70.Rd7 Rc4

70...Ke8 71.Rd4.

71.f5 Ke8 72.Rg7 Rc6+ 73.Ke5 Rc5+ 74.Kd6 Ra5 75.f6 Ra6+ 76.Ke5 Ra5+ 77.Ke6 Kf8 78.Rd7 Ra6+ 79.Rd6 Ra8 80.Rd5 Ke8 81.Kf5 Kf7 82.g5 hxg5 83.Rd7+ Ke8 84.Rh7 Ra1 85.Kg6+-.

2) 69.Rxe6?

This move seems natural but in fact it throws away the win.

D. 4a2

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

a) 69...Kg7? 70.Re7+! Kf8 71.Kf6 Rc6+ 72.Re6 Rc4 73.Kf5 Rc5+

73...Kg7 74.Re7+ Kf8 75.Re4 Rc1 76.Kg6 Rc6+ 77.Kh5 Kg7 78.Re7+ Kg8 (78...Kf8 79.Rh7+-) 79.f5 Ra6 80.Re6+-. 

74.Kg6 Rc4 75.Rf6+ Ke7 76.Rf5+-. 

b) 69…h5!

D. 4a3

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

Only this tactical blow saves Black.

70.g5

After 70.gxh5 we have a drawn rook ending with f- and h-pawns. 70…Kh7 or 70...Kg7 or 70...Kf7=.   

70...Re1+! 71.Kf6 Rxe6+ 72.Kxe6 h4=.
  

Capablanca-Yates_20_12_12.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 #19 - 05/31/12 at 20:22:58
Post Tools
Yes, of cource, 66.Rb3 is also winning, the ideas are same as in the line 65... Kg8 66.Rb3.
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Papageno
Senior Member
****
Offline


FM

Posts: 299
Location: Germany
Joined: 06/12/08
Gender: Male
Re: Capablanca-Yates (Hastings, 1930)
Reply #18 - 05/31/12 at 19:23:31
Post Tools
at my #15: my analysis was a bit too clever indeed, in other words, not really good. thx micawber and Poghosyan for the correction.

One last remark (or question) of mine: After
61.Rb6?! Ra4! 62.Kf3 Ra3+ 63.Ke4 Ra4+ 64.Kf5 Rc4 65.Rb7 Kf8 the move 66.e6!! is flashy and nice. But from the practical player's point of view, 66.Rb3 (and following the same plans as in the line 65... Kg8 66.Rb3) is doing the job too and winning, isn't it?
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Poghosyan
Full Member
***
Offline


I Love ChessPublishing!

Posts: 143
Joined: 10/15/11
Re: Capablanca-Yates (Hastings, 1930)
Reply #17 - 05/31/12 at 17:35:24
Post Tools
Thanks Papageno!
This is really an interesting idea but I also think that 66…Kf8 does not save the position.
One way has been already indicated by Micawber and I agree fully with his line. 
The second way can be 67.Rh3 forcing Black to defend the rook pawn. If 67…Kg7 then 68.Re3 transposing into the main line after 66…Kg7 67.Re3. So the only move is 67…Rc6. After 68.Rd3 (Threatening 69.Rd6) Black has no other choice than to bring his king back to g7. 
a) 68…Kg7 69. Ke4.
b) 68... Rc4 69. Rd8+ Kg7 70. Rd7 Rc6 71. Ke4
As to the endgames with f+g vs. h pawn which can show up around move 69 or 70 then I think that you are right and that the resulting endgames are indeed drawn.
  
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 #16 - 05/31/12 at 14:53:10
Post Tools
Without the benefit of deep analysis, I would suggest that 68.Re4 (iso Ke4) is an idea, intending to play Rd4/a4 and only then Ke4 so as to prevent f6:
68.Re4,Ra6 69.Rb4,Rc6 70.Ke4,f6? 71.Rb8+,Kf7 72.Rb7+,Kf8/g8 73.Kd5,Ra6 74.e6 +-
If Black continues his waiting tactics, White forces the win because f5 followed by Rb8+ becomes feasible.
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Papageno
Senior Member
****
Offline


FM

Posts: 299
Location: Germany
Joined: 06/12/08
Gender: Male
Re: Capablanca-Yates (Hastings, 1930)
Reply #15 - 05/31/12 at 14:18:41
Post Tools
Poghosyan wrote on 05/12/12 at 13:38:07:
D. 1

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

Capablanca played here [...]

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

I. 65...Kf8 66.e6!!

II. 65...Kg8
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 68.Ke4 Rc4+ 69.Kf3 [...] +-


Have a question here, I quite like

66...Kf8!

Instead of 66...Kg7 Transposition to the analysis of Kopaev of 1956 and 1958. This is examined in posting #1, winning for White.

67.Re3

White continues his plan of fighting for the square e4 for his king as in line II. 3).
Unlike one move earlier, 67.e6 fxe6+ 68.Ke5 is no longer a problem for Black since the white rook left its most active position.

67...Rc6 68.Ke4 f6!

Last chance for Black to improve the structure. Here and in the next move, Black is ready to accept a number of f+g vs. h pawn positions, but with the rather passive white rook they all seem acceptable for Black.

BTW, with one more active move, rook back to a3, White is winning as shown in line II. 3) A).

69.Kd5 Ra6 70.e6 Ra5+ 71.Kc6 Ra4 72.f5 Rxg4 73.Rh3 Rf4 74.Rxh6 Ke7 =

(Black avoids the last trap 74... Rxf5? 75.Kd6 +-)

How can we break Black's resistance here? Did I misjudge one of the endgames with f+g vs. h pawn which can show up around move 69 or 70?

Or it it still a draw?
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Poghosyan
Full Member
***
Offline


I Love ChessPublishing!

Posts: 143
Joined: 10/15/11
Re: Capablanca-Yates (Hastings, 1930)
Reply #14 - 05/25/12 at 08:36:14
Post Tools
pgn-file Nikolic-Ftacnik
  

Nikolic-Ftacnik_25_05_12.pgn ( 3 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 #13 - 05/25/12 at 08:35:27
Post Tools
Thanks a lot Papageno for your valuable corrections! I agree fully with you.

In D. 20 5...Ra6+ is indeed not the decisive mistake. So 5...Kf8! is not the only way to draw but apparently the best practical option. After 5...Ra6+?! 6.Ke7 (White has nothing better) 6…Ra5! draws, as shown in variation II. 3 A b. Black throws away the draw by the move 6…Ra7+? (as suggested by Ftacnik, Emms and Nunn).

In D. 24 your suggestion 75. Rf6 is indeed an easy win for White. It is in my opinion the best practical option. White wins also after 75.Kg2 Rh4 but the play is much more complicated. 76.Kg3 Rh1 77.Rf6 Ke8 78.Rf5 Ra1 (78...Rg1+ 79.Kf3 Rf1+ 80.Kg2 Ra1 81.Rf6 Ra4 82.Kf3+-) 79.Rh5 Ra6 80.f5 Rb6 81.Kh4 (or 81.f6 Kd7 82.Rxh6 Ke6 83.Rh5 Rb4 84.Rf5 Rb1 85.Kh4 Rb8 86.Rf1 Kxe5 87.g5+-) 81...Rb5 82.Rxh6 Rxe5 83.Kg5 Ke7 84.Ra6 Rb5 85.Kh6 Rb4 86.f6+ Kd7 87.Kg7 Rxg4+ 88.Kxf7+-. 

I have attached the corrected pgn-files Nikolic-Ftacnik and Capablanca-Yates.
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Papageno
Senior Member
****
Offline


FM

Posts: 299
Location: Germany
Joined: 06/12/08
Gender: Male
Re: Capablanca-Yates (Hastings, 1930)
Reply #12 - 05/24/12 at 14:49:48
Post Tools
Thx for this interesting reading! It was an important endgame lesson for me, since I horribly misplayed this ending myself just two years ago. And in my analysis right after the game I didn't get much straight either...

Only two minor points I noticed in your posting #7 while playing through the lines.

Poghosyan wrote on 05/22/12 at 18:29:15:
D. 20

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

B) 4...Ra1?! 5.Kd6

Now 5…Kf8! transposes to Duras-Capablanca (rev. col.) (D. 18 after 3…Rg1? 4.Kd5? Kf8! 5.Kd6 Ra1). 
Instead of 5…Kf8! Ftacnik, Emms and Nunn consider only 5…Ra6+ ? which loses.

6.Ke7 Ra7+ 7.Rd7 Ra5

7...Ra8 8.Rb7 Rc8 9.Kd6 +- (Nunn).

8.e6 fxe6 9.f6++-.   


5...Kf8! is one way for Black to hold the position.

But 5...Ra6+ must be o.k. as well if and ony if Black follows up with 6. Ke7 Ra5!=. By transposition, this is a position from Smeets-Wiersma that you analysed before (variation II. 3 A b) and assessed as drawn.

Poghosyan wrote on 05/22/12 at 18:29:15:
D. 24

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

After 71…Re1+ White wins by driving the Black rook off the e-file.

72.Kf3

A. 72…Kf8

73.Rd4 The win is analogous to the line in Duras-Capablanca (rev. col.), D. 12 after 9…Kf8 10.Ra4. 

73...Ke7 74.Rd6 Rh1 75.Kg2 Rh4 76.Kf3 h5 77.g5 Rh1 78.Ke4 h4 79.Rh6 h3 80.Kf3 h2 81.Kg2+- 



Your assessment seems correct to me but the line given is not entirely convincing as 75.Kg2 Rh4 76.Kf3 invites Black to repeat moves with 75...Rh1. Perhaps 75. Rf6 (planning Rf6-f5-h5) or sth. else is better in breaking Black's resistance.

Keep up the good work! Smiley
  
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 #11 - 05/23/12 at 05:44:22
Post Tools
Ths Poghesyan. for your additional analysis and for posting Kopaevs original analysis.

From your posts it becomse clear the the weaker side can not save Capablanca-Yates positions by pinning the e-pawn. There is no way of saving the initial position after either Rd6 or Rb6.

In Duras-Capablanca (col.rev) playing f5? at once threw away the win but Kopaev showed that white still can win by other means.


It really is a shame that so much of kopaevs material was deleted by averbakh.
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
proustiskeen
God Member
*****
Offline


Hello from Omaha!

Posts: 661
Joined: 08/11/08
Re: Capablanca-Yates (Hastings, 1930)
Reply #10 - 05/22/12 at 18:57:59
Post Tools
Wow.  Cheesy  Such a feast for the mind!  Thank you Pogohysian (and Micawber)!
  
Back to top
WWW  
IP Logged
 
Poghosyan
Full Member
***
Offline


I Love ChessPublishing!

Posts: 143
Joined: 10/15/11
Re: Capablanca-Yates (Hastings, 1930)
Reply #9 - 05/22/12 at 18:32:12
Post Tools
Here is the pgn-file

Capablanca-Yates pinning
  

Capablanca-Yates_pinning.pgn ( 0 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 #8 - 05/22/12 at 18:31:00
Post Tools
Here is thepgn-file

Capablanca-Yates 71...Re1
  

Capablanca-Yates_71___Re1.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 #7 - 05/22/12 at 18:29:15
Post Tools
II. 3.f5?

D. 18

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

1) As indicated by Kopayev the best move here is 3...Kf8. Kopayev apparently assumed that it is easier to draw with the White king on e4 rather than on d5. So he did not provide for concrete variations and referred to the line 4.Kd5? Kf8! in Duras-Capablanca (col. rev.) where the White king has already advanced to d5. After 3…Kf8 Black can keep his rook on e-file and exchange the central pawn of White if it advances. The ensuing e- and g-pawns versus h-pawn or f- and g-pawns versus h-pawn positions are as a rule drawn.       

2) 3…Rg1?

Duras-Capablanca (col. rev.). This move of Duras loses.

4.Kd5?

Capablanca fails to exploit his opponent’s mistake. Kopayev’s move 4.Rd7! wins here.
a) 4...Kf8 5.f6 Re1+ 6.Kd5 Rd1+ 7.Kc6 Rc1+ 8.Kb5 Rb1+ (8...Ke8 9.Re7+ Kf8 10.Ra7 Ke8 11.Ra8+ Kd7 12.Rf8 Ke6 13.Re8+ Kd5 14.e6) 9.Kc4 Rc1+ 10.Kb4 Rc8 11.Kb5 Re8 12.Kc6 Rxe5 13.Rd8+ Re8 14.Rxe8+ Kxe8+- 
b) 4...Rxg4+ 5.Kf3 Rg5 6.Kf4 Kf8 7.f6 Ke8 (7...Kg8 8.Rd8+ Kh7 9.Rf8 Kg6 10.Rg8+ Kh5 11.Rg7) 8.Re7+ Kf8 9.Ra7 Ke8 10.Ra8+ Kd7 11.Rf8 Ke6 12.Re8+ Kd5 13.Re7 Rg8 14.Rd7+ Kc6 15.Rxf7+-

4...Kf8!

Black activates his king and with accurate defence this position is drawn.

5.Kd6 Ra1 6.e6

Kopayev showed that 6.f6 also does not help. 6…Ke8 7.Rb4 Rd1+ 8.Kc5 Rc1+ 9.Kd4 Rd1+ 10.Kc4 (10.Kc3 Re1 11.Rb8+ Kd7 12.Rb7+ Ke6 13.Re7+ Kd5 14.Rxf7 Re3+ 15.Kd2 Rxe5 16.Re7 Re6=) 10...Rc1+ 11.Kd3 Kd7]

6...Ra6+?

This final mistake seals Black's fate. Kopayev proved very convincingly that Black could have drawn by 6...Re1!

D. 19

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

a) 7.Rd2 Re3 8.Rh2 fxe6 9.fxe6 Rd3+ 10.Ke5 Re3+ 11.Kf5 Rf3+ 12.Kg6 (12.Ke4 Rf6 13.Kd5 Ke7) 12...Rf4 13.Rh4 (13.Rg2 Re4 14.Kf5 Re1 15.Rh2 Rf1+ 16.Kg6 Rf4) 13...h5 14.Kxh5 Re4 15.Kg6 Rxe6+ 16.Kh7 Re7+ 17.Kh8 Rg7=.
b) 7.Ra4 fxe6 8.fxe6 Rd1+ 9.Ke5 Ke7 10.Ra7+ Ke8 11.Kf6 Rf1+ 12.Kg6 Rg1 13.Ra4 Rh1=.
c) 7.Kd7 Re2 8.Rd6 Re4! 9.exf7 Kxf7 10.Rg6 Rf4 11.Kd6 h5 12.Ke5 Rxg4=

On the move Black draws by 7...fxe6 8.fxe6 Ke8 (8...Ra1=) 9.Ra4 Rd1+ 10.Ke5 Re1+ 11.Kf6 Rf1+ 12.Kg6 Rh1 13.Ra7 Rg1!=. Just waiting with rook on e-file also draws. Micawber considers the line 7...Re2 8.Rc4 fxe6 9.fxe6 Rd2+ 10.Ke5 Rd1? and evaluates the position as drawn. In fact the last move loses: 11.Kf6 Rf1+ 12.Kg6 Rh1 13.Rc7 Ke8 14.e7 Rh2 15.Kg7 Rh1 16.Rc6+-. Black draws if he plays 10...Ke7 or 10...Ke8 (instead of 10...Rd1?). E. g. 10...Ke7 12.Rc7+ Ke8 13.Kf6 Rf2+ 14.Kg6 Rg2 15.Kh5 Rg1 16.e7 Rg2=.

7.Ke5 fxe6 8.f6!

8.fxe6? Ra1=

8...Kg8 9.Rd6 Ra1

9...Ra4 10.Kxe6 Re4+ 11.Kf5 Ra4 12.g5 Ra5+ 13.Ke6 hxg5 14.Rd8+ Kh7 15.f7+-
9...Rxd6 10.Kxd6 Kf7 11.Ke5 Kf8 12.Kxe6 Ke8 13.f7+ Kf8 14.Kf6 h5 15.g5+- 

10.Kxe6 Re1+ 11.Kf5 Rg1 12.Rd8+ Kf7 13.Rd7+ Kf8 14.Rh7

14.g5 Rxg5+ (14...hxg5 15.Kg6) 15.Ke6+- 

14...Kg8 15.Rxh6 Rg2 16.g5 Rg1 17.Kg6. Duras resigned.   

3) 3…Re1+?!

Nikolic-Ftacnik (1997). 3…Re1+?! doesn’t lose but it is a superfluous move. 

4.Kd5

D. 20

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

As we saw in Carls-Matisons (D. 17) this position is drawn even White to play but Ftacnik, Emms and Nunn believe that the position is winning for White. Also here the easiest way to draw is 4…Kf8.

A) 4...Rf1?! 5.Kd6 Ra1?

This is the decisive mistake. 5…Kf8 still draws. After 58.e6 (Micawber  58.Ra4 Rd1+=; 58.Kd7 Re1 59.e6= Transposition to the analysis Duras-Capablanca) 58...Re1we transpose to the analysis of Kopayev in Duras-Capablanca  (see 6…Re1! Instead of 6…Ra6+?). 

a) 6.Rc4 Ra8

Black doesn’t have anything better.
6...Rd1+ 59.Ke7 Rd5 60.e6 (Ftacnik). 58...Ra6+ 59.Rc6 Ra4 60.Rc7 (Micawber). 58...Rd1+ 59.Ke7 Rd5 60.e6 (Emms).   

7.Rc7 Ra6+

7...Kf8 8.Kd7 Ra5 9.Rc8+ Kg7 10.f6+ Kh7 11.e6 (Ftacnik). 

8.Ke7 Ra4

8...Rb6 fails to 9.e6.
8...Ra8 also does not help. 9.e6 (or 9.Rd7 Rb8 10.f6+ Kg6 11.Rd8 Rb7+ 12.Kd6 Kg5 13.Rd7 Rb6+ 14.Kc5 Re6 15.Re7 Ra6 16.Rxf7+-) 9...fxe6 10.Kxe6++-.

9.e6 fxe6

9...f6 10.Kd8+ Kg8 11.e7 (Ftacnik).

10.f6+ Kg6 11.f7 Rf4 12.f8Q Rxf8 13.Kxf8 e5 14.Rc4. Ftacnik resigned.

b) 6.Ke7?

D. 21

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

The move 6.Ke7 was recommended by Ftacnik and Micawber and played in Smeets-Wiersma (2003) but it throws away the win. 

6...Ra5!

The only move to draw. 6...Re1? (Ftacnik and Micawber ) fails to 7.e6 Re2 8.Rd7+-.

7.e6 fxe6 8.fxe6

8.Kxe6 Ra6+ 9.Ke7 (9.Rd6 Rxd6+ 10.Kxd6 Kf6 11.Kd5 h5=) 9...Ra7+ 10.Rd7 Rxd7+ 11.Kxd7 Kf6=.

D. 22

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

8...Ra7+

Black can draw also by 8...Ra8 and 8...Ra6=.

9.Rd7 Ra6?

This move of Wiersma loses. Black could have drawn by nearly every other move on a-file. E. g.  9…Ra4 10.Ke8+ Kf6 11.e7 Ke6=.

10.Rd6?

10.Ke8+! Kf6 11.e7+- (Micawber).

10...Ra7+?

White returns the compliment. Black could have drawn by 10...Ra8! preventing the move Ke8.

11.Ke8 Ra8+ 12.Rd8 Ra7 13.Rd7+ 1–0

B) 4...Ra1?! 5.Kd6

Now 5…Kf8! transposes to Duras-Capablanca (rev. col.) (D. 18 after 3…Rg1? 4.Kd5? Kf8! 5.Kd6 Ra1). 
Instead of 5…Kf8! Ftacnik, Emms and Nunn consider only 5…Ra6+ ? which loses.

6.Ke7 Ra7+ 7.Rd7 Ra5

7...Ra8 8.Rb7 Rc8 9.Kd6 +- (Nunn).

8.e6 fxe6 9.f6++-.   


After this complicated analysis it is not that much difficult to address the doubts of Micawber.

1)

D. 23

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

Micawber wonders how white wins against 71.......Re1+ in 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).

D. 24

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

After 71…Re1+ White wins by driving the Black rook off the e-file.

72.Kf3

A. 72…Kf8

73.Rd4 The win is analogous to the line in Duras-Capablanca (rev. col.), D. 12 after 9…Kf8 10.Ra4. 

73...Ke7 74.Rd6 Rh1 75.Kg2 Rh4 76.Kf3 h5 77.g5 Rh1 78.Ke4 h4 79.Rh6 h3 80.Kf3 h2 81.Kg2+- 

B. 72...Rf1+ 73.Ke3 Rg1

73...h5 74.g5 h4 75.Ke4 h3 76.Rd2+-. 
73...Re1+ 74.Kf2 Re4 75.Kf3 Re1 76.Rd4 Kg7 77.Kf2 Ra1 78.Rd8+- The win is analogous to the line in D. 16 with the White rook on a8.   

74.Rd8+

a) 74…Kg7 75.f5 Re1+

75...Rxg4 76.f6+ Kh7 77.e6+-

76.Kf4 Rf1+ 77.Kg3 Re1 78.f6+ Kh7 79.Re8+-

b) 74...Kh7 75.Kf3 Rf1+ 76.Ke4 Re1+

D. 25

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

77.Kf5 Kg7 78.Rd7+-

This position can arise also from the initial position (D. 23) if Black tries after 69.Rd4 to keep the White king boxed in by 69…Re1. White answers by 70.Rd7.

In order to prevent e5-e6 Black has now nothing better than to keep his rook on e-file. 

78...Re2 79.Re7 Ra2

Since Black can not hinder e5-e6 he tries to resort to flank checks.

80.e6 Ra5+ 81.Ke4 Ra4+ 82.Kf3 Ra3+ 83.Kg2 Kf6 84.Rxf7+ Kxe6 85.Rh7+-.

D. 26 = D. 23

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

After 61.Rb6?! Ra4 62.Kf3 Ra3+ 63.Ke4 Ra4+ 64.Kf5 Micawber suggests pinning the e-pawn by 64…Ra5 or by 64…Rc4 65.Rb7 Rc5.

64…Rc4 65.Rb7 Rc5 

If 64...Ra5 then 65.Rb4 Ra1 (65...Kf8 66.Ke4 Ra1 67.Rb8+ Kg7 68.f5+-) 66.Ke4+- See below after 67.Ke4.

66.Rb4 Rc1

66...Kf8 67.Ke4 Rc1 68.Rb8+ Kg7 69.f5+-.

67.Ke4 Re1+

67...Rg1 68.Kf3+- White wins analogous to the line in D. 10 after 3.Ra4 Rg1 4.Kf3.

68.Kf3 Rf1+ 69.Kg2 Ra1 70.Rb8+- White wins analogous to the line in D. 15 after 4.Kf3 Rf1+ 5.Kg2 Rb1 6.Ra8. 
  

Nikolic-Ftacnik.pgn ( 3 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 #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: 661
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
 
Bookmarks: del.icio.us Digg Facebook Google Google+ Linked in reddit StumbleUpon Twitter Yahoo