Antonio Torrecillas wrote in message ...
I think white actual move was 21.Rd1 a6 22.Kc1.
(Khaskelman is a 2160 player)

you know, databases are plenty of those transcription mistakes.

AT

Oops! That makes sense. Oh well, the position was interesting to
analyze anyway, even if the "why didn't Black play that" question is
irrelevant.


En/na Schliemann Mann ha escrit:
In the game Khaskelman-Grechanovskaya, Kiev 1999, the following
position arose after Black's 20th move:

W: Kd2, Rf1, Be3, Pa2,b2,c2,e4,f2,h2
B: Ke7, Rh8, Nd7, Pa7,b4,e5,g7,h7

The next few moves were quite curious to me:

21.Rd1 a6 22.Ke1 Rc8 23.Rd5 Rc6.

At first glance I couldn't fathom why White allowed, and Black
declined to play, 23...Rxc2. After a deeper look, I see things are not
so simple; nevertheless, I don't see anything decisive for White after
23...Rxc2, and Black's position did collapse rather quickly after the
game continuation (see the end of this post). Here's my analysis of
23...Rxc2. Am I missing something, or are the end positions of my
analysis better for White than I think?

Note that White cannot force Black into line (B1b) below. White can go
for line (A1b) with the bishop back on c1 stopping the passer, or can
give Black the choice of lines (B1a) or (B2). In the latter lines, if
Black eventually chooses to jettison the a6-pawn and activate her rook
on the kingside, as happened in the game continuation, White will be
left with just one passed pawn on the queenside, not three! (See the
game position after White's move 30.)