Author: Peter McKenzie
Date: 16:46:26 09/08/01
Go up one level in this thread
Thanks Jim, I will certainly use the first position. Not sure about the 2nd one for now. cheers, Peter On September 08, 2001 at 01:07:09, Jim Monaghan wrote: >Amazing how these programs can refute or at least doubt GM analysis. >Here's a few more: > >[D]3r4/7p/Rp4k1/5p2/4p3/2P5/PP3P1P/5K2 b - - 0 1 > >Tarrasch - Rubinstein, 1911 > >Theme: Active counterplay in R endings even at cost of material vs passive >defense. > >Gelfer (Positional Chess Handbook) says: Passive defense by 1...Rd6 or 1...Rb8 >is doomed to failure. So this becomes another avoid moves test. >The "right" idea is: > >1...Rd2! 2. Rxb6+ Kg5 3. Ke1 Rc2 4. Rb5 Kg4 5. h3+ Kxh3 6. Rxf5 Rxb2 > and Black drew without effort. If 3. a4 f4 4. a5 f3! is welcome to Black. > >This seems right intuitively to me but probably won't hold up. > >Another one from Gelfer, active king theme: > >[D] 8/R5pp/2p1k3/2p2p2/2P5/1P2P1P1/P3r2P/6K1 b - - 0 1 > >Lilenthal - Smyslov, 1941 > >1...g5! 2. Rxh7 Rxa2 3. Rh6+ Ke5 4. Rxc6 Ke4 5. Rxc5 f4! 6. exf4 Kf3 7. h3 >Ra1+ 8. Kh2 Ra2+ with perpetual check. Again looks neat. I like the idea of >pursuing active positional goals: Rook to 7th, active king vs materialism. Yace >had trouble with both of these ... > >Jim
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.