Author: martin fierz
Date: 15:00:05 10/14/02
aloha! some people have claimed that kramnik was already busted and would have lost game 5 even without his blunder. i was wondering about the possibility for kramnik to go into a queen ending at move 33 with 33. ...Qxa7 34. Qxe5 Qxa2 35. Qb8+ Kh7 36. Qxb6 as pointed out by sarah. [D] 8/5p1k/1Q4pp/8/8/4P1PP/q4PK1/8 b - - 0 36 is this a draw or not? kramnik obviously decided not to play this. i think he did this not because he was afraid of this endgame, but rather because he thought that his Qc4?? blunder would actually save his pawn. using chessbase, i searched for games with 2400+ players in BIG2000 with 4-3 on the same wing in queen endgames, no passers, no doubled pawns, non-blocked. here's what the statistics say: overall: 29 games, 8 wins for the strong side, 21 draws. weak side has fgh-pawns: 24 games, 6 wins for strong side weak side has efg-pawns: 5 games, 2 wins for strong side i looked at the fgh-cases, and, based on these games, my conclusion is that the DF-kramnik position is likely a draw. the wins for the strong side of this endgame generally were in positions where the weak side has moved his f-pawn. against the "classic" 4-3 defence of f7,g6,h5 no single win resulted for the strong side. i have selected 5 of these endgames which highlight some of the differences in pawn structures, and which seemed instructive to me, and pasted them below. the bottom line is that without his blunder kramnik might have saved this game. i'm not saying it's a simple draw, specially not against an untiring opponent who has perfect knowledge of QP-Q, but it is not impossible either. it seems clear to me that kramnik was not lost yet. kramnik failed to win this endgame against anand (in rapidplay though): [D] 8/6pk/5p1p/Q7/8/4P2P/1q3PP1/6K1 b - - 0 35 Kramnik,V (2751) - Anand,V (2781) [D27] Amber Rapidplay Monte Carlo (3), 18.03.1999 1.d4 d5 2.c4 dxc4 3.Sf3 e6 4.e3 Sf6 5.Lxc4 c5 6.0-0 a6 7.a4 Sc6 8.De2 Dc7 9.Sc3 Ld6 10.Ld2 0-0 11.d5 exd5 12.Sxd5 Sxd5 13.Lxd5 Td8 14.h3 Lh2+ 15.Sxh2 Txd5 16.Lc3 Le6 17.Sf3 Tad8 18.a5 h6 19.Tfc1 De7 20.Td1 Txd1+ 21.Txd1 Ld5 22.Td2 Lxf3 23.Txd8+ Dxd8 24.Dxf3 Sxa5 25.Dg4 f6 26.Da4 b6 27.Lxa5 bxa5 28.Dc4+ Kh8 29.Dxc5 Dd2 30.Dc8+ Kh7 31.Dxa6 Dc1+ 32.Df1 Dxb2 33.Dd3+ Kh8 34.Dd8+ Kh7 35.Dxa5 De2 36.Df5+ Kh8 37.g4 Kg8 38.Dd5+ Kh7 39.Kg2 Db2 40.h4 Dc1 41.h5 Db2 42.Kf3 Kh8 43.Kg3 Kh7 44.f4 De2 45.De4+ Kh8 46.Da8+ Kh7 47.Df3 Dd2 48.Df2 Dd1 49.e4 Dd3+ 50.Df3 Dd2 51.Kh3 De1 52.Dd3 Dh1+ 53.Kg3 Dg1+ 54.Kf3 Dh1+ ½-½ here's a win by christiansen on the strong side: note how the white king is cut off from his pawns and this makes it very hard for white! [D] 8/Q4pkp/4p1p1/4q3/8/6PP/5P2/3K4 w - - 0 49 Peters,J (2445) - Christiansen,L (2575) [B08] USA-ch/zt South Bend (7), 1981 1.e4 d6 2.d4 g6 3.Sc3 Lg7 4.Le3 c6 5.a4 Sf6 6.h3 0-0 7.Sf3 Sbd7 8.e5 dxe5 9.dxe5 Sd5 10.Sxd5 cxd5 11.Ld4 Dc7 12.De2 Sc5 13.De3 Se6 14.Lc3 Td8 15.0-0-0 Ld7 16.Txd5 Lxa4 17.Ta5 Lc6 18.Le2 b6 19.Ta3 Tac8 20.Td1 Txd1+ 21.Lxd1 Td8 22.Le2 Dd7 23.Kb1 Db7 24.g3 Lh6 25.Dxh6 Lxf3 26.De3 Lxe2 27.Dxe2 b5 28.De1 Td5 29.b3 a6 30.Ta1 Dc6 31.Kb2 Td8 32.De3 Tc8 33.Tc1 Sc7 34.La5 Sd5 35.De4 Dc5 36.Td1 e6 37.Le1 b4 38.Td4 Sc3 39.Lxc3 Dxc3+ 40.Kb1 a5 41.Tc4 Txc4 42.bxc4 a4 43.Da8+ Kg7 44.Dxa4 Dxc4 45.Da7 b3 46.cxb3 Dxb3+ 47.Kc1 Dc3+ 48.Kd1 Dxe5 49.h4 De4 50.Kd2 Kf6 51.Da1+ De5 52.Da7 h5 53.Kd3 De1 54.Dd4+ e5 55.Dd6+ Kg7 56.Db6 e4+ 57.Kc4 De2+ 58.Kd5 Dd3+ 59.Ke5 Df3 60.De3 Df5+ 61.Kd4 Kf6 62.Kc4 De5 63.Dd2 De6+ 64.Kc3 Dc8+ 65.Kb3 Ke6 66.Dd4 Dc6 67.De3 f6 68.Kb2 Dd5 69.Kc2 De5 70.Kd2 Kf5 71.f3 Dd5+ 72.Ke2 exf3+ 73.Dxf3+ Dxf3+ 74.Kxf3 Ke5 75.Ke3 g5 76.hxg5 fxg5 77.Kf3 Kd4 78.Ke2 Ke4 79.Kf2 Kd3 80.Kf3 g4+ 81.Kf4 Ke2 0-1 here's another win, where black (weak side) has moved his f-pawn. note how this also makes the defence harder (impossible?), because the white queen can attack the pawns from behind: [D] 8/6kp/6p1/2Q2p2/8/4P1P1/1q3PKP/8 b - - 0 35 Ribli,Z (2585) - Hertneck,G (2445) [A64] Dortmund Dortmund, 1986 1.Sf3 Sf6 2.c4 g6 3.Sc3 Lg7 4.d4 0-0 5.g3 d6 6.Lg2 c5 7.d5 a6 8.a4 e6 9.0-0 exd5 10.cxd5 Sbd7 11.Sd2 Te8 12.Sc4 Se5 13.Sxe5 Txe5 14.Lf4 Te8 15.Dc2 Sh5 16.Ld2 f5 17.e3 Ld7 18.a5 b5 19.axb6 Dxb6 20.Ta2 Sf6 21.Tfa1 Lc8 22.Sa4 Db5 23.Lf1 Db7 24.Sc3 Df7 25.Lxa6 Sxd5 26.Sxd5 Txa6 27.Txa6 Lxa6 28.Txa6 Dxd5 29.Lc3 Ta8 30.Dd2 Db7 31.Txa8+ Dxa8 32.Lxg7 Kxg7 33.Dxd6 Da1+ 34.Kg2 Dxb2 35.Dxc5 Db7+ 36.Kh3 Df3 37.Dd4+ Kg8 38.Df4 Dh5+ 39.Kg2 De2 40.Db8+ Kg7 41.Db7+ Kg8 42.Dd5+ Kg7 43.h3 h5 44.De5+ Kf7 45.Dc7+ Kf6 46.Dd8+ Kf7 47.Dd7+ Kf6 48.De8 Da6 49.Df8+ Ke6 50.Kf3 Da4 51.Dg8+ Kf6 52.Dd8+ Ke6 53.Dd4 1-0 here's another GM-encounter where huebner fails to win the strong side against ashley, who is over 100 rating points below huebner: i think this is the best defensive setup for the weak side (pawns f7,g6,h5), the same as in the 4-3 rook ending. [D] 8/5ppk/1q2p2p/8/8/3Q2PP/5PK1/8 b - - 0 41 Ashley,M (2460) - Huebner,R (2620) [B80] San Francisco San Francisco (10), 1995 1.e4 c5 2.Sf3 e6 3.d4 cxd4 4.Sxd4 Sc6 5.Sc3 Dc7 6.g3 a6 7.Lg2 Sf6 8.0-0 d6 9.b3 Le7 10.Lb2 0-0 11.Dd2 Sxd4 12.Dxd4 Ld7 13.Tfe1 Tac8 14.Te2 Tfd8 15.h3 Se8 16.Sd1 b5 17.Dd2 Lc6 18.Se3 Lf6 19.Ld4 Db7 20.c4 Lxd4 21.Dxd4 Sf6 22.cxb5 Lxe4 23.Lxe4 Sxe4 24.bxa6 Dxa6 25.Tc2 Txc2 26.Sxc2 De2 27.Sb4 Tc8 28.De3 Db2 29.Td1 d5 30.Sc6 Txc6 31.Dxe4 Tc1 32.De1 Txd1 33.Dxd1 Dxa2 34.Dc1 h6 35.b4 d4 36.b5 Db3 37.Dc8+ Kh7 38.Dd7 Db1+ 39.Kg2 d3 40.b6 Dxb6 41.Dxd3+ g6 42.h4 Dc6+ 43.Kg1 Dd5 44.Da3 g5 45.De7 Kg6 46.hxg5 hxg5 47.De8 Df3 48.Dh8 f6 49.Dc8 Kf5 50.Dc5+ Dd5 51.Dc2+ De4 52.Dd1 Ke5 53.Dd2 Dd4 54.Dc2 Kd6 55.De2 e5 56.Da6+ Ke7 57.Db7+ Ke6 58.Dc8+ Kf7 59.Db7+ Kg6 60.Da8 Dc4 61.Db7 e4 62.Dd7 Df7 63.Dc8 Dd5 64.Kh2 Kf7 65.Dc7+ Ke6 66.Dc8+ Ke5 67.De8+ Kd4 68.De7 Dc6 69.Da3 Dc3 70.Dd6+ Kc4 71.Kg1 Dd4 72.Da3 Kb5 73.Db3+ Kc5 74.Da3+ Kb6 75.Kg2 De5 76.Dc1 Df5 77.Dc3 g4 78.Db4+ Kc6 79.Dc4+ Kd6 80.Dd4+ Ke7 81.Dd2 De5 82.De3 Kf7 83.Dh6 Df5 84.Dd2 De6 85.Kg1 Kg6 86.Dc2 Dd5 87.Dc8 f5 88.De8+ Kf6 89.Dh8+ Ke7 90.Dg7+ Kd6 91.Da7 Dc5 92.Db8+ Kd7 93.Db3 Ke7 ½-½ finally, the only game the weak side lost with a similar position as DF-kramnik: note however, that black plays ...f6? unnecessarily. for those wondering why the correct defensive setup is f7-g6-h5, this game provides some insight: the idea behind a f7-g6-h5 setup is that if white wants to make a passed pawn, he has to play h3-g4-f5-e6, which allows black to trade all 3 remaining pawns, leaving him in a (hopefully) drawn QP-Q endgame. if the f-pawn is advanced however, then white only has to play something like f4-e5 to create a passer, and can use his remaining pawns as shelter against a perpetual check. [D] 3Q4/5pkp/6p1/8/8/4P1P1/5PKP/2q5 b - - 0 37 Gaprindashvili,N (2455) - Bellon Lopez,J (2450) [A61] Biel-B Biel (7), 1988 1.d4 Sf6 2.c4 e6 3.Sc3 c5 4.d5 d6 5.Sf3 exd5 6.cxd5 g6 7.Lf4 Lg7 8.Da4+ Ld7 9.Db3 b5 10.Sxb5 Lxb5 11.Dxb5+ Sbd7 12.Lxd6 Se4 13.Le5 0-0 14.Lxg7 Kxg7 15.Da4 Tb8 16.Dxe4 Da5+ 17.Sd2 Txb2 18.Td1 Sf6 19.Dc4 Tfb8 20.e3 Txa2 21.Ld3 Tbb2 22.0-0 Txd2 23.d6 Sd7 24.Db5 Dc3 25.Lc4 Tab2 26.Dxd7 Dxc4 27.Dxa7 Txd1 28.Txd1 Dc2 29.Tf1 Tb1 30.Da6 c4 31.g3 Txf1+ 32.Kxf1 c3 33.Dc6 Dd1+ 34.Kg2 c2 35.d7 c1D 36.Dxc1 Dxc1 37.d8D Dc6+ 38.Kh3 Dh1 39.Dd4+ f6 40.e4 h5 41.Dd3 g5 42.f3 Dg1 43.De2 Kh6 44.f4 Dc1 45.e5 Dc6 46.fxg5+ fxg5 47.e6 g4+ 48.Kh4 Dc5 49.Dd2+ Kg6 50.Dd8 Df5 51.De8+ Kh6 52.De7 De5 53.Df8+ Kh7 54.Df7+ Kh6 55.Df4+ 1-0 cheers martin
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.