Author: Chesster Fritz
Date: 20:25:17 01/15/04
Go up one level in this thread
On January 15, 2004 at 21:38:32, Ricardo Gibert wrote: >On January 15, 2004 at 21:22:31, Brian Katz wrote: > >>On January 15, 2004 at 17:34:08, Ricardo Gibert wrote: >> >>>On January 15, 2004 at 13:40:23, Brian Katz wrote: >>> >>>>On January 15, 2004 at 12:19:48, Ricardo Gibert wrote: >>>> >>>>>On January 15, 2004 at 12:02:55, Brian Katz wrote: >>>>> >>>>>>Correction it is Speelman who found a forced win after 1..Kc7 >>>>>> >>>>>>I accidently mentioned Michael Steen rather than Speelman. >>>>>>Brian >>>>> >>>>>After 49...Kc7 50.Ba6 (or any other Bishop move) 50...Kd6= and if instead 50.Ka6 >>>>>Bg1=. Read what I wrote carefully and you will see that the draw is quite >>>>>trivial. >>>>> >>>>>BTW, there is no way White can force his way to the h6 pawn with his King as >>>>>I've indicated elsewhere in this thread. >>>> >>>> >>>>How about in this line? >>>> >>>> >>>>1...Kc7 2.Ba6 Be1 >>> >>> >>>As I indicated the move Kd6 here is drawing. >>> >>> >>>>3.c5 Bd2 4.Kc4 Kc6 5.Bb5+ Kc7 6.Kd5 Bb4 7c6 Kd8 8.Bf1 Kc7 >>>>9.Bg2 Bc3 10.Ke6 Bb4 11.Kf7 Be1 12.Kg6 Kd6 13.Kxh5 Bh4 14.Kg6 Kc7 15.Kf5 Kd6 >>>>16.Be4 Kc7 17.Kd6 Bf2 18.Kd5 Bg3 19.Kc5 Be1 20.Kb5 Bd2 21.h4 gxh4 22.Bg2 Bf4 >>>>(22...Kc8 23.Kb6 Bf4 24.Kxa5...) 23.Kxa5 h3 24.Be4 h2 25.Kb5 Be3 26.a5 Kd6 27.a6 >>>>Kc7 28.g5! Bd4 29.g6...and Black is busted. >>>> >>>>BUT perhaps you are right. >>>>Black allows the a-pawn to be captured then the only way white can make progress >>>>is to give back one of the Queenside pawns and that would be a forced DRAW. >>>> >>>>Great position for analysis!!! >>>> >>>>Brian >>> >>> >>>This is _not_ a great position for analysis. There is little need to be doing >>>much analysis at all. You need to pay attention to what I wrote >>>(http://www.talkchess.com/forums/1/message.html?342545). Black has a fortress >>>position against which White cannot produce anything resembling progress. The >>>position is a stone cold draw. >> >>Of course this is a great position for analysis. Peter Svidler even erred in his >>assessment of this position. >>For others who are not familiar with fortresses or who are not rated that >>high....... >> This is wonderful position to look at. >>Who else feels as I do? >>Brian > > >Of course, the position is instructive. What I meant by "This is _not_ a great >position for analysis," I meant specifically that it was not a position for >calculating. If you are calculating more than a little bit, then you are >misunderstanding the position. The position is best solved by thinking >schematically with little calculation. > >The fact that so many titled players and even a quite strong player like Svidler >misunderstands this position is indicative that endgame technique is not nearly >as high as the layperson imagines it to be among the pros. Middle game play and >opening knowledge evidently has much greater practical value. That's a load of crap. Capablanca is turning in his grave. I could post positions, from ChessBase if you hadn't seen them and concluded they were draws, when in fact they are an exception to common theory. Many *Drawish* positions aren't! To solve them takes a great deal of analysis, and technique.
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.