(UTC)
Latest Updates:
  ChessPub Forum › Other › Endgames › Rook Endings › Akopian-Kir. Georgiev (DEM 9-166) when gxh4?
(Moderator: trw)
‹ Previous Topic | Next Topic ›
Page Index Toggle Pages: 1
Topic Tools
Normal Topic Akopian-Kir. Georgiev (DEM 9-166) when gxh4? (Read 8016 times)
John_Hall
YaBB Newbies
*
Offline


I love ChessPublishing.com!

Posts: 8
Location: Leeds, England
Joined: 01/31/03
Gender: Male
Re: Akopian-Kir. Georgiev (DEM 9-166) when gxh4?
Reply #5 - 04/27/14 at 12:33:39
Post Tools
Poghosyan V wrote on 04/27/14 at 09:06:00:
With my previous post I wanted just to stress the importance of your line because it is also relevant for the standard Kantorovich position.

Yes it's important to note the similarities and the direct transpositions. I am grateful to you with your knowledge and experience to add these details.
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Poghosyan V
YaBB Newbies
*
Offline


I Love ChessPublishing!

Posts: 36
Location: Armenia
Joined: 03/07/14
Gender: Male
Re: Akopian-Kir. Georgiev (DEM 9-166) when gxh4?
Reply #4 - 04/27/14 at 09:06:00
Post Tools
With my previous post I wanted just to stress the importance of your line because it is also relevant for the standard Kantorovich position.
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
John_Hall
YaBB Newbies
*
Offline


I love ChessPublishing.com!

Posts: 8
Location: Leeds, England
Joined: 01/31/03
Gender: Male
Re: Akopian-Kir. Georgiev (DEM 9-166) when gxh4?
Reply #3 - 04/26/14 at 13:58:43
Post Tools
Poghosyan V wrote on 04/24/14 at 08:43:10:
It is also important to note that the line 7…Ra2 (improvement of John_Hall on Akopian-Georgiev instead of 7…gh4?) 8.a6 Kg6 transposes into the Kantorovich position if, instead of 2…g4, Black prefers the Aagaard´s plan – 1.Kd4 g5 2.Kd5 Kg6 3.Kc5 f6.

Certainly there is no new theory here, just transpositions into other analysed lines. I just find it surprising (like you commented in your 2...g4 drawing line) that the logical gxh4, which most people planned when playing g6-g5, can regularly be the losing move and even top players, commentators and theoreticians can miss this subtlety. It definitely makes assessment of this new endgame theory tough when the play revolves around such subtle nuances.
« Last Edit: 04/26/14 at 18:28:33 by John_Hall »  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Poghosyan V
YaBB Newbies
*
Offline


I Love ChessPublishing!

Posts: 36
Location: Armenia
Joined: 03/07/14
Gender: Male
Re: Akopian-Kir. Georgiev (DEM 9-166) when gxh4?
Reply #2 - 04/24/14 at 08:43:10
Post Tools
It is also important to note that the line 7…Ra2 (improvement of John_Hall on Akopian-Georgiev instead of 7…gh4?) 8.a6 Kg6 transposes into the Kantorovich position if, instead of 2…g4, Black prefers the Aagaard´s plan – 1.Kd4 g5 2.Kd5 Kg6 3.Kc5 f6.
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Poghosyan V
YaBB Newbies
*
Offline


I Love ChessPublishing!

Posts: 36
Location: Armenia
Joined: 03/07/14
Gender: Male
Re: Akopian-Kir. Georgiev (DEM 9-166) when gxh4?
Reply #1 - 04/21/14 at 06:07:14
Post Tools
The line 7…Ra2 8.a6 Kg6 is very similar to the line 3.Kc6 f6 4.Ra8 Kf5 of my Aagaard plan analysis. It can arise also in the main line after 3…f6 if White instead of 4.f3 plays 4.Ra8.  Black draws!
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
John_Hall
YaBB Newbies
*
Offline


I love ChessPublishing.com!

Posts: 8
Location: Leeds, England
Joined: 01/31/03
Gender: Male
Akopian-Kir. Georgiev (DEM 9-166) when gxh4?
04/20/14 at 16:00:11
Post Tools
In these R+p endings after f6+g5 defence when is gxh4 safe?

Kantorovich/Steckner (DEM 9-144)
* * * * * * * *
* * * * * * * *
* * * * * * * *
* * * * * * * *
* * * * * * * *
* * * * * * * *
* * * * * * * *
* * * * * * * *
*
In Kantorovich/Steckner DEM 9-144 after 1.Kd4 g5! 2.Kd5 as well as Poghosyan's draw by 2…g4 we have Aagaard's draw by 2…Kg6 intending f6,Kf5
You must not preface Aagaard's draw with 2…gxh4? 3.gxh4 since Black loses (Poghosyan mentioned this in his 2…g4 draw) 3…Kg6 4.Kc6 f6 5.Ra8 Kf5 6.Kb6 Rb2+ 7.Ka7 Rxf2 8.Rb8 Kg4 9.Rb4+ Kg3 10.Kb6 Ra2 11.Kb5+-
So White holds up Black's kingside play by defending the lone h4 pawn with Rb4 but, crucially, with g-pawns still on the board the Black King attacks the White pawn on g3.
It turns out this subtly of not exchanging on h4 after f6+g5 occurs in other Rook & pawn endgames although it is often missed!

Akopian-Kir. Georgiev (DEM 9-166)
* * * * * * * *
* * * * * * * *
* * * * * * * *
* * * * * * * *
* * * * * * * *
* * * * * * * *
* * * * * * * *
* * * * * * * *
*
After 1…Ra1?! 2.Ra6! Ra2 3.a4 Ra3+?! 4.Kd4

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

Dvoretsky criticises further Black moves but all lines in DEM from here win for White (two wins in some lines!) but I believe the position is still drawn.
The game continued 4…f6 5.Ra7+ Kh6 6.a5 g5 7.Kc5 gxh4 8.gxh4 Kg6 9.a6 Ra2 10.Ra8 losing similar to 2…gxh4? line above (Kc5 instead of Kc6 irrelevant)
Instead of 7…gxh4? there is 7…Ra2! (not 7…Kg6? 8.Kb4+-) 8.a6 Kg6! 9.Ra8 Kf5! 10.Kb6 Rb2+! 11.Ka7 Rxf2 and 12.Rb8 Kg4 is drawn with g-pawns still on
If White deviates his plan with 10.f3 or 10.a7 then 10…gxh4 11.gxh4 Kf4 draws and if 10.hxg5 fxg5 11.f3 h4! 12.a7 hxg3 draws

Dvoretsky also considers 4…Ra2 5.a5 transposing to Krakops-Dautov (reversed)
Krakops played 5…f6 when Dvoretsky recommends 6.Ra7+ Kh6 7.a6 g5 8.Ra8 gxh4 9.gxh4 Kg6 10.Kc5 winning as in 2…gxh4? line above
But again instead of 8…gxh4? there is 8…Kg6! 9.Kc5 (9.f3 gxh4! 10.gxh4 Kf5= or 9.a7 Kg7=) Kf5 with identical draw to Akopian-Kir. Georgiev 7…Ra2! line above

I believe Dautov line played of 6.f4 analysed to win in DEM can also be countered but it does not fit into this topic so I will leave that for another thread.
In these Rook & pawn endings logical captures such as gxh4 (as with Rxf2) must sometimes be avoided until…, until it is correct! Just keep checking White's hxg5.
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Page Index Toggle Pages: 1
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