Author: Ricardo Gibert
Date: 20:04:18 11/03/00
Go up one level in this thread
On November 03, 2000 at 11:10:46, Ricardo Gibert wrote: >On November 03, 2000 at 10:51:56, Ricardo Gibert wrote: > >>On November 03, 2000 at 09:51:56, Uri Blass wrote: >> >>>On November 03, 2000 at 05:51:16, Ricardo Gibert wrote: >>> >>>>On November 03, 2000 at 04:33:10, Uri Blass wrote: >>>> >>>>>On November 03, 2000 at 03:11:29, Ricardo Gibert wrote: >>>>> >>>>>>On November 03, 2000 at 02:47:40, Sune Larsson wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>>On November 02, 2000 at 20:08:57, Ricardo Gibert wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>>>[D]8/1R3p2/4pkp1/7p/7P/5PP1/r7/6K1 w - - 10 46 >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>Why doesn't White play 46.f4 here? >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Yes, the position after 46.f4 is claimed by Kramnik's seconds, >>>>>>> Illescas and Lautier, to be a known book draw. See Henderson report >>>>>>> at TWIC. Instead Kramnik chose 46.Kf1 (? according to Henderson), >>>>>>> probably because he didn't know this book draw - or got some OTB doubts. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Sune >>>>>> >>>>>>Thanks. I suspected that this might be a known draw, so I looked for it in a >>>>>>couple endgame books, but came up empty. I was surprised that other annotators >>>>>>did not write about it. Actually, the commentators for the Braingames webcam did >>>>>>mention it, but cast it aside as bad, because it "allows" Black to infiltrate >>>>>>White's position via the White squares. Naturally, I could not convince myself >>>>>>that their claim was accurate, hence my post. >>>>>> >>>>>>I think after 46.f4, they could have agreed to a draw and shaken hands. >>>>> >>>>>I do not think that it is so simple and I expect black to try to play it after >>>>>46.f4 >>>>> >>>>>I did not anlayze the position but the fact that kramnik did not play it proves >>>>>that it is not a simple draw(I am sure that he considered f4 because it is a >>>>>natural move to consider). >>>>> >>>>>Uri >>>> >>>>Why guess? Analyze it and show me the variation to confirm this. I'll help get >>>>you started with 46.f4 Kf5 47.Rxf7+ Kg4 48.Rf6 Kxg3 49.Rxg6+ Kxh4 (49...Kh3 >>>>50.Rxe6 Ra1+ 51.Kf2 Kxh4 52.Re1=) 50.Rxe6 Kg3 51.Re1=; 48...Kh3 49.Rxg3 Rg2+ >>>>50.Kh1 Rxg3 (50...Re2 51.Kg1 and Black has nothing better than 51...Rg2+ again; >>>>50...Ra2 51.Rxe6 Kxg3 52.Re1=) Rxe6 51.Rf3 Re1=. It is not necessary to analyze >>>>this so much, but I'm trying to give you plenty to work with. BTW, I'm at work, >>>>so this is all "blindfolded" without use of a set. Hopefully, no errors crept >>>>in. >>> >>>There are other lines to analyze. >>>Kf5 is the more simple line because the sides trade pawns in the first move of >>>black but black can try the plan 46...Ra8 with Re8 and Re7. >>> >>>White can stop Kf5 in this case by Re5 but black can play Kg7 and f6 and later >>>e5 or g5. >>>Black may also play Kf5 when the black rook is in different square. >> > >From move 54 on, I inadvertantly had the White rook shifted over to the a-file >rather than the b-file. It doesn't really change anything substantively. This is >what happens when you analyze without sight of a board. The following is >corrected. > >You're making generalities without any concrete variations. For instance, what >happens after 46.f4 Ra8 47.Kf2 Re8 48.Kf3 Re7 49.Rb6 Kg7 50.Ke4 f6 51.Rb5 Ra7 >52.Kf3 Ra3+ 53.Kf2 Rd3 54.Rb7+ Kf8 (54...Kh6 55.Rf7) 55.Rb6 Ke7 56.Rb7+ Rd7 >(56...Kd6 57.Rf7) 57.Rb5? How can allowing the White King to become active along >with the Rook represent a credible winning attempt? I'm not finding any plan for >Black. BTW, I'm still doing this "blindfolded". I decided to finally take a look at this on a board and it became immediately obvious to me that Black getting e5 in does not hold any terrors for White. White can just play 51.Rb3 and draw very comfortably. Allowing the White King to get active can't be right. > >>> >>>Saying that black has no chances to win only because of the fact that a book >>>said that it is a draw is not convincing(at least it does not convince me). >> >>This is why I keep supplying variations for you to knock down. You haven't >>supplied anything, but conclusions based on suppositions and generalities. >>Supply just one credible try. It does not even have to be sound. I'll make an >>effort to make it work. I've provided you with a lot of material to shoot at, so >>let's see some actual analysis to support your contentions. It does not really >>matter who is right and who is wrong here as long each of us winds up >>understanding this position better at the end. Let's go! >> >>> >>>I am sure that I will try to play it as black because I cannot prove a draw at >>>tournament time control. >>> >>>Uri
This page took 0 seconds to execute
Last modified: Thu, 15 Apr 21 08:11:13 -0700
Current Computer Chess Club Forums at Talkchess. This site by Sean Mintz.