Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1   Report Post  
Old July 5th 10, 12:30 PM posted to rec.games.chess.misc,rec.games.chess.analysis
external usenet poster
 
First recorded activity by ChessBanter: Mar 2009
Posts: 3,536
Default Endgame finesse: 8/8/5P2/r3P2K/8/8/8/7k w - - 0 0 white to move

Plaskett in his tactics exam book claims that in the below position 1.
f7 wins, giving the main line shown below, and indeed this leads to
checkmate, but my move of 1. Kg6 gives a queen vs rook endgame that
looks like White can win. In certain positions queen equals rook when
nothing else is on the board, but I don't think this is one of them,
see: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pawnles...en_versus_rook

So I'm taking the full 15 points here, despite not having Plaskett's
recommended move.

Any disagreements?

RL

8/8/5P2/r3P2K/8/8/8/7k w - - 0 0

[Event "?"]
[Site "?"]
[Date "????.??.??"]
[Round "?"]
[White "New game"]
[Black "?"]
[Result "*"]
[SetUp "1"]
[FEN "8/8/5P2/r3P2K/8/8/8/7k w - - 0 0"]
[PlyCount "11"]

1. f7 (1. Kg6 Rxe5 2. f7 Kg2 3. f8=Q Re3 4. Qf4 Rg3+ 5. Kh5 Rf3 6.
Qd2+ Kh3 7.
Qe2 Rf5+ 8. Kg6 Rf8 9. Qe6+ Kg2 10. Qd5+ Kg1 11. Kg5 $18) 1... Rxe5+
2. Kg4
Re4+ (2... Kg2 3. f8=Q Re4+) 3. Kg3 Re3+ 4. Kf2 Re4 (4... Rc3 5. f8=Q
Rc2+ 6.
Kg3 Rc3+ 7. Kf4 Rc4+ 8. Kg5 Rc2 9. Qf1+ Kh2 10. Qf4+ Kg1 11. Qd4+ Rf2
12. Kg4
Kg2 13. Qd1 Rf8 14. Qd5+ Kf1 15. Qb5+ Kg2 16. Qc6+ Kf1 17. Kg3 Ke2) 5.
f8=R Rh4
6. Kg3 *

  #2   Report Post  
Old July 5th 10, 05:35 PM posted to rec.games.chess.misc,rec.games.chess.analysis
external usenet poster
 
First recorded activity by ChessBanter: Sep 2007
Posts: 163
Default Endgame finesse: 8/8/5P2/r3P2K/8/8/8/7k w - - 0 0 white to move

On 5 July, 12:30, raylopez99 wrote:
Plaskett in his tactics exam book claims that in the below position 1.
f7 wins, giving the main line shown below, and indeed this leads to
checkmate, but my move of 1. Kg6 gives a queen vs rook endgame that
looks like White can win.


According to Tim Krabbe, this is just a (feeble) elaboration of the
Saavedra study, as perpetrated by Porterfield Rynd in an attempt to
claim the credit - see http://www.xs4all.nl/~timkr/chess2/prynd.htm
for more details.

Yes, Kg6 (or Kg4) also wins.
  #3   Report Post  
Old July 5th 10, 06:37 PM posted to rec.games.chess.misc,rec.games.chess.analysis
external usenet poster
 
First recorded activity by ChessBanter: Jun 2009
Posts: 3,256
Default Endgame finesse: 8/8/5P2/r3P2K/8/8/8/7k w - - 0 0 white to move

On Jul 5, 12:35*pm, "Andrew B." wrote:

According to Tim Krabbe, this is just a (feeble) elaboration of the
Saavedra study, as perpetrated by Porterfield Rynd in an attempt to
claim the credit - seehttp://www.xs4all.nl/~timkr/chess2/prynd.htm
for more details.


Andrew, is that really the sense of Krabbé's article? If I
understand it correctly, Krabbé concludes that the position probably
came originally from an actual game of Rynd's. The relevant passage:

"It must have happened like this. When Saavedra, in Glasgow, saw the
(mirrored) Clontarf-position in the paper, wrongfully presented as a
draw, he rushed to the club to tell about the beautiful winning move
that he knew. That he hadn't found that move himself was a detail that
was lost in the ensuing bewilderment and enthusiasm.
"Or maybe Saavedra didn't mention that - but there really is no
reason to accuse him of dishonesty. The point is that when Barbier
finally published the Rook promotion on May 25th, it was not
Saavedra's move, but Rynd's move that Saavedra knew about ...
"As to Saavedra - his myth is unsurpassable now. He became immortal
for a move he had just heard about."

  #4   Report Post  
Old July 5th 10, 07:26 PM posted to rec.games.chess.misc,rec.games.chess.analysis
external usenet poster
 
First recorded activity by ChessBanter: Dec 2008
Posts: 116
Default Endgame finesse: 8/8/5P2/r3P2K/8/8/8/7k w - - 0 0 white to move

On 05/07/10 18:37, Taylor Kingston wrote:
On Jul 5, 12:35 pm, "Andrew wrote:
According to Tim Krabbe, this is just a (feeble) elaboration of the
Saavedra study, as perpetrated by Porterfield Rynd in an attempt to
claim the credit - seehttp://www.xs4all.nl/~timkr/chess2/prynd.htm
for more details.

Andrew, is that really the sense of Krabbé's article? If I
understand it correctly, Krabbé concludes that the position probably
came originally from an actual game of Rynd's.


Indeed he did in that article; but see

http://www.xs4all.nl/~timkr/chess2/diary_8.htm

[item 151] where another Rynd article appears to have been debunked,
leading him to suppose that he [TK] had been overenthusiastic about
Rynd's reliability.

--
Andy Walker
Nottingham
  #5   Report Post  
Old July 5th 10, 07:45 PM posted to rec.games.chess.misc,rec.games.chess.analysis
external usenet poster
 
First recorded activity by ChessBanter: Jun 2009
Posts: 3,256
Default Endgame finesse: 8/8/5P2/r3P2K/8/8/8/7k w - - 0 0 white to move

On Jul 5, 2:26*pm, Andy Walker wrote:
On 05/07/10 18:37, Taylor Kingston wrote:

On Jul 5, 12:35 pm, "Andrew *wrote:
According to Tim Krabbe, this is just a (feeble) elaboration of the
Saavedra study, as perpetrated by Porterfield Rynd in an attempt to
claim the credit - seehttp://www.xs4all.nl/~timkr/chess2/prynd.htm
for more details.

* *Andrew, is that really the sense of Krabb 's article? If I
understand it correctly, Krabb concludes that the position probably
came originally from an actual game of Rynd's.


* * * * Indeed he did in that article; *but see

* *http://www.xs4all.nl/~timkr/chess2/diary_8.htm

[item 151] where another Rynd article appears to have been debunked,
leading him to suppose that he [TK] had been overenthusiastic about
Rynd's reliability.


Thanks, Andy. I was not aware of the later item. Krabbé does indeed
say "this means that Porterfield Rynd was a plagiarist, and that my
great scoop 'The messenger - the Saavedra myth exposed' where I
related how Rynd had anticipated the famous Saavedra study in a simul
game, was in fact a canard. I'll have to rewrite that piece."
Perhaps Andrew had intended to supply links to both in the first
place. As it was, the one reference he gave contradicted his point.




  #6   Report Post  
Old July 5th 10, 08:21 PM posted to rec.games.chess.misc,rec.games.chess.analysis
external usenet poster
 
First recorded activity by ChessBanter: Mar 2009
Posts: 3,536
Default Endgame finesse: 8/8/5P2/r3P2K/8/8/8/7k w - - 0 0 white to move

On Jul 5, 9:45*pm, Taylor Kingston
wrote:
* Thanks, Andy. I was not aware of the later item. Krabbé does indeed
say "this means that Porterfield Rynd was a plagiarist, and that my
great scoop 'The messenger - the Saavedra myth exposed' where I
related how Rynd had anticipated the famous Saavedra study in a simul
game, was in fact a canard. I'll have to rewrite that piece."
* Perhaps Andrew had intended to supply links to both in the first
place. As it was, the one reference he gave contradicted his point.


Well that's ludicrous, TK. That means that this scenario by Krabbe is
CORRECT:

Quote
But suppose Porterfield Rynd did invent the game. How would that have
happened?
He sees the 18 May Glasgow Weekly Citizen chess column with a
position in which his old club-mate Saavedra is said to have found a
'remarkable win'. He says to himself: "If that patzer can do it, I can
do it, too," - and his breath is taken when he finds the Rook
promotion. How beautiful. Why didn't he think of something like that
himself? But - he just did think of it himself, it is his idea. But if
he publishes it as a solution to Barbier's position, he will just be
one among many solvers. To really make it his own, he must invent a
game in which he played it. That is not so difficult, and as an
opponent he chooses the old Colonel - he won't mind or even notice; he
forgets his games as soon as he's played them. And if he makes it a
simul game played at the Clontarf Club, a few years back, when
Saavedra still came there, readers will think the priest got the move
from him, and is now showing it around in Glasgow as his move.
No... it will never work, he will be found out before the ink of
his lie is dry, he will probably be disbarred, but who cares - to have
been seen as the creator of such an endgame, if only for a few
hours...

/Quote

So a barrister probably gets disbarred, earns everlasting shame, is
run out of town, etc etc etc for only a few hours of fame in a chess
publication? Sounds like a short story by Willa Sibert Cather.

RL

  #7   Report Post  
Old July 5th 10, 08:36 PM posted to rec.games.chess.misc,rec.games.chess.analysis
sd sd is offline
external usenet poster
 
First recorded activity by ChessBanter: Jun 2009
Posts: 922
Default Endgame finesse: 8/8/5P2/r3P2K/8/8/8/7k w - - 0 0 white to move

On Jul 5, 1:45*pm, Taylor Kingston
wrote:
On Jul 5, 2:26*pm, Andy Walker wrote:



On 05/07/10 18:37, Taylor Kingston wrote:


On Jul 5, 12:35 pm, "Andrew *wrote:
According to Tim Krabbe, this is just a (feeble) elaboration of the
Saavedra study, as perpetrated by Porterfield Rynd in an attempt to
claim the credit - seehttp://www.xs4all.nl/~timkr/chess2/prynd.htm
for more details.
* *Andrew, is that really the sense of Krabb 's article? If I
understand it correctly, Krabb concludes that the position probably
came originally from an actual game of Rynd's.


* * * * Indeed he did in that article; *but see


* *http://www.xs4all.nl/~timkr/chess2/diary_8.htm


[item 151] where another Rynd article appears to have been debunked,
leading him to suppose that he [TK] had been overenthusiastic about
Rynd's reliability.


* Thanks, Andy. I was not aware of the later item. Krabbé does indeed
say "this means that Porterfield Rynd was a plagiarist, and that my
great scoop 'The messenger - the Saavedra myth exposed' where I
related how Rynd had anticipated the famous Saavedra study in a simul
game, was in fact a canard. I'll have to rewrite that piece."
* Perhaps Andrew had intended to supply links to both in the first
place. As it was, the one reference he gave contradicted his point.


Porterfield Rynd really deserves serious study by a chess historian.
There was an interesting article a few years back in Die Schwalbe on
how he had also represented himself as the discoverer of the helpmate.
But Irish Champion, inventor of a chess variant, and why make up these
things? I have my own personal theory on why he transgressed against
Caissa, but without more evidence I prefer to keep it to myself,

SBD
  #8   Report Post  
Old July 5th 10, 08:48 PM posted to rec.games.chess.misc,rec.games.chess.analysis
external usenet poster
 
First recorded activity by ChessBanter: Jun 2009
Posts: 3,256
Default Endgame finesse: 8/8/5P2/r3P2K/8/8/8/7k w - - 0 0 white to move

On Jul 5, 3:36*pm, sd wrote:

Porterfield Rynd really deserves serious study by a chess historian.
There was an interesting article a few years back in Die Schwalbe on
how he had also represented himself as the discoverer of the helpmate.
But Irish Champion, inventor of a chess variant, and why make up these
things?


An Irishman who likes to make up tall tales ... does such a thing
really need any explanation? A bit like asking why a fish swims.
Perhaps Rynd had kissed the Blarney Stone. ;-)

I have my own personal theory on why he transgressed against
Caissa, but without more evidence I prefer to keep it to myself,


I hope someday you publish your findings.
  #9   Report Post  
Old July 6th 10, 04:46 PM posted to rec.games.chess.misc,rec.games.chess.analysis
external usenet poster
 
First recorded activity by ChessBanter: Sep 2007
Posts: 163
Default Endgame finesse: 8/8/5P2/r3P2K/8/8/8/7k w - - 0 0 white to move

On 5 July, 19:45, Taylor Kingston wrote:
On Jul 5, 2:26*pm, Andy Walker wrote:



On 05/07/10 18:37, Taylor Kingston wrote:


On Jul 5, 12:35 pm, "Andrew *wrote:
According to Tim Krabbe, this is just a (feeble) elaboration of the
Saavedra study, as perpetrated by Porterfield Rynd in an attempt to
claim the credit - seehttp://www.xs4all.nl/~timkr/chess2/prynd.htm
for more details.
* *Andrew, is that really the sense of Krabb 's article? If I
understand it correctly, Krabb concludes that the position probably
came originally from an actual game of Rynd's.


* * * * Indeed he did in that article; *but see


* *http://www.xs4all.nl/~timkr/chess2/diary_8.htm


[item 151] where another Rynd article appears to have been debunked,
leading him to suppose that he [TK] had been overenthusiastic about
Rynd's reliability.


* Thanks, Andy. I was not aware of the later item. Krabbé does indeed
say "this means that Porterfield Rynd was a plagiarist, and that my
great scoop 'The messenger - the Saavedra myth exposed' where I
related how Rynd had anticipated the famous Saavedra study in a simul
game, was in fact a canard. I'll have to rewrite that piece."
* Perhaps Andrew had intended to supply links to both in the first
place. As it was, the one reference he gave contradicted his point.


Yes - there is a link to the second item in the first, but it's not
especially obvious and I meant to include it separately in the
posting.

Note that if Rynd wasn't a plagiarist, then
a) Saavedra (who was, after all, a man of the cloth) was prepared to
take the credit for a move that wasn't his idea
b) Rynd twice happened to mention that he'd played a game which had
the same brilliant finish as a recently published study.

Re raylopez99's original posting - obviously you only get credit for
spotting Kg6 if you worked out the win after 1...Rxe5, 2.f7 Re6+ etc.
  #10   Report Post  
Old July 6th 10, 05:42 PM posted to rec.games.chess.misc,rec.games.chess.analysis
external usenet poster
 
First recorded activity by ChessBanter: Mar 2009
Posts: 3,536
Default Endgame finesse: 8/8/5P2/r3P2K/8/8/8/7k w - - 0 0 white to move

On Jul 6, 6:46*pm, "Andrew B." wrote:
Note that if Rynd wasn't a plagiarist, then
a) Saavedra (who was, after all, a man of the cloth) was prepared to
take the credit for a move that wasn't his idea
b) Rynd twice happened to mention that he'd played a game which had
the same brilliant finish as a recently published study.


Well it comes down to this: do you trust a man of the cloth, or a
barrister? That's an easy choice, but in theory a barrister will lose
his license to practice law if caught making a bald faced lie (not
related to defending his client). But Rynd, the barrister, apparently
knew the bounds of the law and could push the limit without going over
(since he was a plagiarist, and had lied before). Hence, it seems
probable he was lying.


Re raylopez99's original posting - obviously you only get credit for
spotting Kg6 if you worked out the win after 1...Rxe5, 2.f7 Re6+ etc.


I did, but in truth some of these R vs Q endings come close to
violating the 50-move rule in chess. Do I have to work it out to
mate, within the limits of the 50 move rule? That might be a bit too
much.

RL
Reply
Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules

Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Endgame finesse: another RayLopez Instructional Game (TM) Taylor Kingston[_2_] rec.games.chess.misc (Chess General) 0 June 29th 10 04:04 PM
Game 9 Topalov v Anand Offramp rec.games.chess.misc (Chess General) 40 May 7th 10 01:35 AM
analyzed game Antonio Torrecillas rec.games.chess.analysis (Chess Analysis) 17 January 30th 07 11:36 PM
rec.games.chess.misc FAQ [2/4] [email protected] rec.games.chess.misc (Chess General) 0 May 8th 06 05:24 AM
rec.games.chess.misc FAQ [2/4] [email protected] rec.games.chess.misc (Chess General) 0 January 3rd 06 06:04 AM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 11:57 PM.

Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2019, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2019 ChessBanter.
The comments are property of their posters.
 

About Us

"It's about Chess"

 

Copyright © 2017