**Part 3**Our next two examples are the most complex by far and closely connected with each other.

**D. 8****Levenfish/Smyslov n. 164** (English ed., 1989),

**n. 241** (Russian ed. 1986)

Levenfish/Smyslov showed convincingly that White to move wins with 1.Kg4! and Black is unable to effectively prevent the king from advancing to h5. 1…Rg6+ 2.Kh4 Rf6 3.Kh5+- or 1…Ra3 2.Rh7 Ra6 3.Kh5+-. Black to play the position is drawn.

**1...Ra3 **This move draws but contrary to the view of Levenfish/Smyslov Black doesn’t lose also by 1...Kg8 (D. 8.12).

**2.Kg4 **2.g4 Ra6 3.Rd7 Rb6 4.Ke5 Rg6 5.g5 hxg5 6.f5 Rg7=.

**2...Kg8** Now Levenfish/Smyslov consider only 3.f5 (I.) and 3.Kh4 (II.). 3.Re7 (III.) suggested by Kuzminykh/Zeveke is stronger because it prevents the 3...h5 blow which is possible in case of 3.f5.

**I. 3.f5 h5+** Levenfish/Smyslov stopped here. Speelman considers only the move 3...Ra5. After 4.Re7 Rb5 5.Kf4 play transposes into the main line of Kuzminykh (after 5.Kf4).

**4.Kh4 **4.Kf4 Ra4+ 5.Ke5 Rg4=

**4...Rf3 5.g4 hxg4 6.Kg5 g3 7.Kg6 Kf8 8.f6 Ke8**= (Kuzminykh/Zeveke).

**II. 3.Kh4 Rf3! **The only move to draw. Levenfish/Smyslov stop here.

**4.Rd7** Kuzminykh/Zeveke

**4...Rf1** Now 4...Kf8? loses to 5.Rh7 and 4...Ra3? to 5.g4 (Kuzminykh/Zeveke).

4...Kh8?! also draws but the defence is much more complicated. After 5.Kg4 Ra3 (not 5…Rf1 6.Kh5 Rf3 7.Kh6 Rg3 8.Rd8) 6.f5 we transpose to D. 9 (Schmidt-Plachetka).

**5.Kg4 **5.Kh5 Rf3=.

**5…Rg1 **Or 5…Rf2 6.Rd6 Kh7 7.Kf5 Rg2 (Speelman with White rook on e-file).

**6.Rd3 **6.f5 Rg2=.

**6…Kg7 7.Kf5 Rg2 8.g4 Rg1 9.Rd7+ Kg8**=.

**III. 3.Re7** **D. 8.1**The main line of Kuzminykh. This move is stronger than 3.f5 because it prevents the 3...h5 blow which is possible in case of 3.f5

**3...Rb3 4.f5 **Now White has again the threat Kh4 followed by g4 and Kh5. See this position White to move in D. 9 after 1...Kg8?

**4...Rb5!**The only move which prevents 5.Kh4.

4...h5+? does not help here thanks to the position of the White rook on e7 - 5.Kf4 Rb4+ 6.Re4 Rb3 7.Re3+-

**5.Kf4 **We will see an analogous position in D. 9 with a position of Black king on h8 after 1.f5 Ra5 2.Kf4 (D. 9.1).

**D. 8.2**We shall analyse an analogous position in D. 9.1 (D. 9 after 1.f5 Ra5 2.Kf4). Thanks to the good position of the king on g8 Black has here more options than in D. 9.1 with Black king on h8. The theory considers here 5…Rb4+ (1) and 5…Ra5 (2). It is interesting to note that Speelman considers 5…Ra5 as loosing and 5…Rb4+ as drawing, whilst Ftacnik claims exactly the contrary. In fact both …Rb4+ and 5…Ra5 draw. In my opinion the most straightforward defence is 5…Rb3 (3) which transposes to the line of Speelman 5…Rb4+ after 6.Ke5 Rb3 7.Kf4 or to the line of Mukoseyev/Smayslov in D. 9 after 1.f5 Kg8? 2.Kf4? Rb3 3.Re7 Ra3 (line II. 1).

**1) 5…Rb4+ **Active defence but Black must defend carefully to hold the game.

**A) 6.Ke5 **a) Kuzminykh/Zeveke give here only the line

**6…Rg4?! 7.Ke6**= and stop their analysis. According to Ftacnik White is winning. The position is in fact drawn although the drawing line is not particularly obvious.

**D. 8.3** **7…Re4+! **The only move to draw. Ftacnik considers only 7...Rxg3? and refers to the game Wedberg-Speelman (1982) (col. rev.) where the Black rook was on g4 (which does not make any difference). As J. Nunn remarks Speelman condacted this endgame with great skill and gave also accurate analysis in Informator (and in BCE). The game continued: 8.Re8+! Kh7 9.f6 Re3(4)+ 10.Kd7! (10.Kf7 Ra3=) 10...Rd3+ 11.Ke7 Re3+ 12.Kf8 Ra3 13.f7 Ra7 14.Rd8 Kg6 15.Rd6+ Kg5 16.Ke8 1-0. For detailed analysis of this endgame see BCE (p. 269-270) and Nunn`s exellent analysis (also verbal) in Nunn`s Chess Endings, vol. 2, p. 190-191.

**8.Kf6 Ra4! **8...Rg4? fails also here: 9.Re8+ Kh7 10.Ke6 Re4+ 11.Kf7 Rg4 12.f6+-.

**9.Rg7+ Kh8! **9...Kf8? 10.Rg6!+-

**10.Re7 Kg8 11.Re6 Rb4**=

**b) 6…Rb3! **This move of Speelman forces White king to retreat to f4.

**D. 8.4****7.Kf4 **After 7.Ke6 White loses his g-pawn: 7…Re3+ (not 7...Rxg3? 8.Re8+ Kh7 9.f6) 8.Kf6 Rxg3 (Speelman). Or 7.g4 Rb4 8.Ke6 Re4+ (Speelman).

**7...Rb4+ **Or 7…Ra3 (see the line 3) 5…Rb3.

**8.Re4 **We have now transposed to the next line – B) 6.Re4, D. 8.5.

**B) 6.Re4 ****D. 8.5****a) 6…Rb5! **This is the idea of Mukoseyev who analysed this position with the Black rook on a4 (the position of the Black rook on a- or b-file does not make any difference). After 6…Rb5 White can not improve his position. Ftacnik gives here 7.f6 Kf7 8.Re5 Rb6=.

**b) **Black draws also by

**6...Rb7? 7.f6 Kf7 8.Kf5**.

Minev, Kuzminykh, Smyslov and Mukoseyev evaluated this position as lost but Speelman proved that Black can save this position.

**D. 8.6****8…h5! 11.Re5 **11.Re7+ Rxe7 12.fxe7 h4!=

**11...Ra7 12.Kg5 h4! 13.gxh4 Ra1**=.

This ending is drawn but as Speelman points out, „that would be a ludicrous way to defend in practice“.

Back to

**D. 8.2**.

**2) 5...Ra5?!****D. 8.7**Contrary to Speelman's views Black can draw also by 5...Ra5 but the defence is more difficult.

**6.f6 **A) Speelman considers only the passive

**6…Rb5?** which indeed loses. We shall follow now the game Schmidt-Plachetka (1976) (rev. col.) but with the rook on b-file (as we noted above the position of the Black rook on a- or b-file does not make any difference). N. Minev was the first who analysed it in Shakhmatna mysl and Informator and proved that with correct play Plachetka could have won. Ftacnic repeats in ECE mainly the analysis of Minev but fails to make reference to it. Since this ending has been analysed in nearly all endgame books I will reproduce here only the main lines.

**D. 8.8****7.Rg7+ Kh8** 7...Kf8 8.g4 -- 9.Rh7.

**8.g4 Ra5 **8...Rb4+ 9.Kf5 Rb5+ 10.Kg6 Rg5+ 11.Kf7 Ra5 12.g5 hxg5 13.Kg6.

**9.g5 hxg5+ 10.Kg4 **10.Rxg5 Ra7 11.Kf5 Kh7 12.Rh5+ Kg8 13.Kg6 Rg7+=.

**10...Ra8 **10...Rb5 11.Re7 Kg8 12.Kh5 -- 13.Kg6+-.

**D. 8.9****11.Kh5? **Minev proved the win by 11.Kf5 g4 12.Kg6 Rg8 13.Kf7 Ra8 14.Rg5! Ra7+ 15.Kg6 g3 16.Rb5 Ra8 17.Rh5++-

As Kuzminykh pointed out White could have won easily by 11.Re7 Rg8 12.Kh5 g4 13.Kh6 Ra8 14.Rh7+ Kg8 15.f7+. Nunn indicates the fastest way – 11.Rd7 Rg8 (11...Kg8 12.Kf5 Rb8 13.Kg6 Rc8 14.Rg7+ Kf8 15.Rh7 Kg8 16.f7+) 12.Kf5 g4 13.f7 Ra8 14.Kf6 g3 15.Re7 g2 16.Re8+ Kh7 17.f8Q Ra6+ 18.Kf5+-.

**11...Rf8 12.Rg6** 12.Kg6 Rg8 13.Kf7 Ra8 14.Rxg5 Ra7+ 15.Kg6 Kg8 16.Rb5 Rg7+.

**12...g4 13.Kxg4 Ra8= 14.Kg5 Ra5+ 15.Kg4 Ra4+ 16.Kh5 Rf4 17.Rh6+ Kg8 18.Kg6 Rf1 19.Rh5 Rg1+** Draw agreed.

Back to

**D. 8.7 **after 6.f6.

**B) 6…h5! **The only move to draw.

**D. 8.10**6...h5! was suggested by Mukoseyev (Smyslov, Russian edition 1986, p. 109). Kuzminykh/Zeveke have also analysed this position (n. 26).

**a) 7.Re5 Ra4+ 8.Kf5 Rg4 **Kuzminykh, Zeveke suggest as alternative draw 8...Kh7 9.Re7+ Kh6 10.Re8 (10.f7 Kg7; 10.Ke6 Ra6+ 11.Kf7 Ra8= Ftacnik) 10...Ra5+ 11.Ke6 Ra6+ 12.Kf7 Ra7+ 13.Re7 (13.Kf8 Kg6) 13...Ra8=.

**9.Ke6** 9.Re6 Kf7 10.Re7+ Kf8 11.Rg7 Rxg7 12.fxg7+ Kxg7 13.Kg5 h4 14.Kxh4 Kh6= .

**9...Rxg3 10.Ke7 Rf3 11.Rg5+ Kh7 12.f7 **12.Rxh5+ Kg6 13.Rh1 Re3+= .

**12...Re3+ **12...Kh6= 13.Rg8 h4 14.f8Q+ Rxf8 15.Rxf8 (15.Kxf8 Kh5 16.Kf7 h3 17.Kf6 Kh4 18.Kf5 h2 19.Kf4 Kh3= Ftacnik) 15...Kg5 16.Ke6 h3 17.Ke5 Kg4 18.Ke4 h2= .

**13.Kf8 Rf3 14.Rg8 Kh6 15.Ke7 h4**=.

Back to

**D. 8.10****b) 7.Rg7+ Kf8 8.Rg5 Ra4+ 9.Kf5** 9.Kf3 Kf7

**9...h4**= Mukoseyev 10.g4?? not 8...Ra5+–+.

Back to

**D. 8.2** **3) 5…Rb3** **D. 8.11**The black rook tries to keep the White king tied to the defence of g3-pawn. Since the White king is on f4 and therefore he can not implement the plan Kh4 followed by g4 and Kh5 the position of the rook on 3 rank is very safe. We will see this method defence also in D. 9 after 1.f5 Kg8? 2.Kf4? Rb3 3.Re7 Ra3 (line II. 1).

**6.Re3 **If 6.f6 then 6…h5! See D. 9.1 after 2.Kf4? Rb3 3.Re7 Ra3 (line II. 1).

6.Kg4 Rb5 repeats the position at move 4.

**a) 6…Rb4+** =.

The simplest. Now 7.Ke5 is less dangerous than in the line I A (D. 8b after 5…Rb4+ 6.Ke5) since the White rook has been forced to take a passive position. 7...Kf7 6.Rd3 (6.Ra3 Rb5+ 7.Kf4 Rb4+=) 6...Rg4 7.Ra3 h5!=.

7.Re4 transposes after 7…Ra5 to the D. 8.5 after 7…Rb5.

**b) 6…Rb5 **Trying to prevent the advance of the king.

**7.g4 Rb1** The position still requires a careful play by the defender. Black can not improve now the position of his king. 7...Kg7? loses to 8.Re7+ Kf8 9.f6 Kg8 10.Rg7+ Kh8 11.g5+- (see Schmidt-Plachetka, D. 8h after 7.Rg7+ Kh8 8.g4 Rb5 9.g5).

7...Kf7?! does not lose but make the defence more complicated since Black is oblieged to transfer to a R+f+h versus R endgame after 8.Re6 Rb4+! 9.Kg3 h5!=

By transferring the rook to the first rank (it was possible also on the 6. move) Black wants to put his rook on h1 and to keep his king in front of the passed pawn.

**8.Kg3 Kf7 9.Re6 Kg7**=.

We have transposed to a line in the analysis of the well-known game Keres-Smyslov (col. rev.) after 7...Ra1 instead of 7...Rf1.

Back to the

**D. 8.** **1...Kg8** Contrary to the opinion of Smyslov this move does not lose.

**D. 8.12****2.Re7 Ra3 3.g4 **2.Kg4 transposes to the main line (D. 8 after 1…Ra3 2.Kg4 Kg8) with Black to play.

**3...Rg3!** Levenfish/Smyslov consider only 3...Ra4? 4.Re4 Ra6 5.Re6+-

**4.Re6 Kh7! **But not 4...Kg7? 5.Rg6+ Kh7 6.Kf6!+-.

After 4…Kh7! Speelman writes: "seems to draw" (BCE, p. 270). The position is indeed drawn.

**5.Ra6 Rg1**Or 5…Rg2. White cannot improve his position.

**6.Ra7+ Kg8 **Or 6...Kh8?! 7.Ke6 Rxg4! 8.f5 Re4+! 9.Kf7 h5 10.f6 Kh7!=

**7.Ke6 Rxg4 8.f5 Re4+ 9.Kf6 Rg4 10.Ke5 h5**=.