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.)

XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX

23...Rxc2

(A) 24.Ra5 Rxb2 [24...Rc6? 25.Ra4]

-(A1) 25.Kd1 b3! 26.a4 Rc2 27.Rxa6 Rc4

--(A1a) 28.Ra7? b2 29.Rb7 Rxa4 30.Rxb2 Rxe4 =/+
--(A1b) 28.Bc1 Rxe4 - White looks so passive, hard to believe a-pawn
can win for him here.

-(A2) 25.Rxa6 b3 26.a4 Rc2

--(A2a) 27.Kd1 Rc4 - transposes to (A1)
--(A2b) 27.Ra7?? b2 28.Rb7 Rc1+ -+

(B) 24.a4

-(B1) 24...Rxb2 25.Kd1! [25.Ra5 b3 will transpose to (A)] b3 26.Kc1
Rc2+ 27.Kb1

--(B1a) 27...Rc6 28.Ra5 and Kb2, Kxb3, tie Black down to passive
defense of a6. Is it enough to win?
--(B1b) 27...Rc4 28.Ra5 Rxe4 29.Rxa6 and Kb2, Kxb3 -- now very hard
for Black to stop a-pawn

--(B2) 24...bxa3 25.bxa3 Rc6 -- similar to (B1a), with White king on
e-file instead of b-file.

XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX

Conclusion of the game Khaskelman-Grechanovskaya: 23...Rc6 24.Ra5 Kd6
25.Kd1 Kc7 26.Ra4 Rg6 27.Ke2 Rg2 28.Rxa6 Rxh2 29.Ra4 h5 30.Rxb4 (What
a picture!) h4 31.Ra4 h3 32.Ra8 Nb8 33.Ra7+ Kd6 34.Rxg7 Nc6 35.c3 Rh1
36.Rh7 h2 37.b4 Nd8 38.Kf3 Ra1 39.Rxh2 Rxa2 40.c4 Rc2 41.c5+ Kc6
42.Rh6+ Kc7 43.Rh7+ Kc6 44.Rh6+ Kc7 45.b5 Nb7 46.Rc6+ 1-0.

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

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.)

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.)

(Schliemann Mann) wrote in
rec.games.chess.analysis:


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.

Indeed, the analysis is relevant and instructive.

If half the people here spending twice the time they really need to study
openings would only reserve a quarter of that time to analysis of this
kind, their rating progress would probably have doubled by now... ))

It leaves me with a question to you - just out of curiosity. How did you
stumble upon the problem? Reason why I ask it? Often I spend a lot of time
searching my databases for this kind of positions, and it's often quite
hard to define and discern them as interesting, even with advanced
database search functions.

Thanks.

--
CeeBee


Uxbridge: "By God, sir, I've lost my leg!"
Wellington: "By God, sir, so you have!"


Google CeeBee @ www.geocities.com/ceebee_2

CeeBee wrote in message . 6.83...
(Schliemann Mann) wrote in
rec.games.chess.analysis:


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.

Indeed, the analysis is relevant and instructive.

Thank you, I'm glad you appreciated it.

If half the people here spending twice the time they really need to study
openings would only reserve a quarter of that time to analysis of this
kind, their rating progress would probably have doubled by now... ))

It leaves me with a question to you - just out of curiosity. How did you
stumble upon the problem? Reason why I ask it? Often I spend a lot of time
searching my databases for this kind of positions, and it's often quite
hard to define and discern them as interesting, even with advanced
database search functions.

I wish I had a good answer for you, but the truth is I stumbled across
the position. Actually, regarding your point above about openings vs.
engdames study, one way to balance the two is to play out the entire
games you come across when you're researching opening lines -- and
when you come across moves that you don't understand, really study
them until you do understand or until you're confident that the
players really did miss something and you can explain it. This can
apply to middlegame or endgame positions in any game you play through.
Ask yourself, "Could I see myself playing and winning the game the
same way this player did?" Spend extra time on the moves you don't
think you would have seen or played. Not only will this improve your
overall skills, it may help you to better understand the types of
positions arising from the openings you want to play.

If you want a fun and challenging endgame position to analyze, from an
old and famous opening line, try your hand at this one: In the 1920's
the Rubinstein Variation of the Four Knights Game was a hot topic in
theory and practice. One sharp and critical line was 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6
3.Nc3 Nf6 4.Bb5 Nd4 5.Nxe5 Qe7 6.f4 Nxb5 7.Nxb5 d6 8.Nf3 Qxe4+ 9.Kf2
Ng4+. These days the opening books give 10.Kg1 leading to a roughly
balanced if unclear position -- the 1990 edition of MCO gave a 1971
Bisguier-Soltis blitz game as the basis of its line! -- but originally
10.Kg3 was critical. The same MCO dismissed it saying only that
10...Qg6 is "perilous for White", but there's a much deeper and more
complicated story there.

The line then goes 11.Nh4 Qh5 12.Nxc7+ Kd8 13.h3 (13.Nxa8 g5! 14.fxg5
d5 15.d4 Bd6 16.Bf4 Qxg5 is strong for Black) Nf6 14.Nxa8. Here it was
first believed that White was better, based on lines like 14...Ne4+
15.Kh2 Qxh4 16.Qf3 d5 17.d3. Then, according to a Russian collection
of Rubinstein's games written by Razuvayev and Murakhveri, one "G.
Vagner" (perhaps H. Wagner in German or English) discovered
14...Qxh4+!! 15.Kxh4 Ne4, and now the threat of Be7 mate is powerful:
16.g4 Be7+ 17.g5 h6 is no defense for White. But White can survive by
returning his queen: 16.Qg4 Be7+ 17.Qg5 Bxg5+ 18.fxg5 h6 19.g6 fxg6.
Now 20.d3 fails to 20...g5+ 21.Kh5 Bf5 and mates, but White can fight
on with 20.Rf1 g5+ 21.Kh5 Ng3+ (it looks like a composed endgame
study!) 22.Kg6 Nxf1.

The analysis ends with the conclusion that Black has a large advantage
-- but the endgame is far from trivial! White's king is in position to
threaten to eat up all Black's kingside pawns, and it takes some care
on Black's part to round up the trapped knight. Depending on how the
queenside pawn situation shakes out, Black might just have to know the
knight-and-bishop mate to win the game.

As a sample of the problems that natural but inexact play by Black can
lead to, check out 23.b3 b6? 24.Ba3 Ba6 25.Nxb6 axb6 26.Bxd6, a drawn
position I believe. Or 23.b3 Ng3 24.Ba3 Ne4? 25.Re1 d5 26.d3 Nf6
27.Kxg7 Re8 28.Rxe8 Nxe8 29.Kxh6 g4 30.h4! b6 31.g3! or 30...g3
31.Bc5!, and White is the one with winning chances. Or 23.b3 Ng3
24.Ba3 Kd7? 25.Re1 with the plan Re1-e3-d3.

The right way for Black looks like 23.b3 Ng3 24.Ba3 Re8! 25.Kxg7 Re6!
(Or 24.Bb2 Re8! 25.Bxg7 Re6+.) Then there are lines like 23.Kxg7 Re8
24.Kxh6 Re2! and 23.d3 Rf8 (better than 23.d3 Ng3 24.Kxg7 Re8
25.Kxh6). The objectively best try for White, I believe, is 23.Kxg7
Re8 24.d3. All the kingside pawns may disappear, but can White
distract Black with them and with the trapped knight long enough to
stop the Black rook from winning the game on the queenside?

Again, this is all of very little importance for opening theory: no
one will want to enter a line as White where best play leaves White
fighting for a draw in the endgame. But the position itself is quite
interesting to analyze.

En/na Schliemann Mann ha escrit:

1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6
3.Nc3 Nf6 4.Bb5 Nd4 5.Nxe5 Qe7 6.f4 Nxb5 7.Nxb5 d6 8.Nf3 Qxe4+
9.Kf2 Ng4+ 10.Kg3 Qg6 11.Nh4 Qh5 12.Nxc7+ Kd8 13.h3 Nf6 14.Nxa8.
14...Qxh4+!! 15.Kxh4 Ne4,
16.Qg4 Be7+ 17.Qg5 Bxg5+ 18.fxg5 h6 19.g6 fxg6.
20.Rf1 g5+ 21.Kh5 Ng3+ 22.Kg6 Nxf1.

The analysis ends with the conclusion that Black has a large advantage
-- but the endgame is far from trivial!

Curiously, I have this line in my database (only as "AT analysis" from
1998) with the comment of "-+" after 23.Kg7 Re8. I don't remember what
was the source of my "inspiration".

AT

Would not white present black with much more trouble with 23 b3
instead of 23 Kxg7? For example 23 b3 Re8 24 Ba3 Nxd2 25 Rd1 and black
should have great difficulty winning. Of course there might be
something better than 23... Re8 for black. Please give your thoughts
on this.



Regards.

Do not try to answer via the above email. All messages are blocked.
Give your email here if you want an email conversation.

(Kennet Eriksson) wrote in message . com...
Would not white present black with much more trouble with 23 b3
instead of 23 Kxg7? For example 23 b3 Re8 24 Ba3 Nxd2 25 Rd1 and black
should have great difficulty winning. Of course there might be
something better than 23... Re8 for black. Please give your thoughts
on this.



Regards.

Do not try to answer via the above email. All messages are blocked.
Give your email here if you want an email conversation.


Sorry for my post above, I only read Antonio Torrecillas post and
missed the preceding...