Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1   Report Post  
Old July 9th 10, 12:23 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 8/pp4kp/4p3/6pP/4K3/5P2/PPP5/8 w - - 0 1 is a draw with either ofthese moves

8/pp4kp/4p3/6pP/4K3/5P2/PPP5/8 w - - 0 1

In this position, from Plaskett-Rowson, Scotland 1998, Plaskett in his
tactics book gives 15 points credit to 1...Kg7, which is a fine move
that leads to a draw, and also suggested by the PC, but I suggest
1...b5 which also leads to a draw.

As I don't see any refutation of my move (see below), I am taking 15
points as well.

This author in this book is too clever by half, suggesting forcing
lines that are not, and making mistakes. The book was published
without resort to computer analysis, in 2002, when PCs were strong
enough to help.

BTW, Plaskett blasts Dvoretsky (who has written a fine endgame book)
for being too dogmatic, pointing out that students untutored by him or
any school, such as Speelman, Adams and Short, have gone farther than
D's students Yusupov (sic: I think he misspelled this guy's name, now
residing in the USA, as I could not find his FIDE rating), Dolmatov
(who quit playing chess OTB in 2004, and now apparently is just a
behind-the-scenes trainer), Dreev (2660 Elo, 60th player about the
same as Short at 2690), Chernin, Zviagintzev etc. But as you can see
just from Dreev, Plaskett is wrong about this as well, though I do
think, reading between the lines, that Dvoretsky is a bit too full of
himself with dogma, just like Dr. Tarrasch was over a century ago.

RL


[Event "?"]
[Site "?"]
[Date "????.??.??"]
[Round "?"]
[White "New game"]
[Black "?"]
[Result "*"]
[SetUp "1"]
[FEN "8/pp5p/4pk2/6pP/4K3/5P2/PPP5/8 b - - 0 0"]
[PlyCount "23"]

1... Kg7 (1... b5 2. a3 a5 3. b4 axb4 4. axb4 e5 5. Kd5 Kf5 6. c4 bxc4
7. Kxc4
e4 8. fxe4+ Kxe4 9. b5 g4 10. b6 g3 11. b7 g2 12. b8=Q g1=Q 13. Qb7+
Kf4 14.
Qf7+ Ke5 15. Qe7+ Kf5 16. Qxh7+ Kf6 17. Qh6+ Kf7 18. Qf4+ Kg8 19. Qe5
Qg7) 2.
c4 Kh6 3. c5 Kxh5 4. b4 Kg6 5. Ke5 h5 6. b5 Kf7 7. Kd6 g4 8. fxg4 hxg4
9. c6
bxc6 10. bxc6 g3 11. c7 g2 12. c8=Q g1=Q *

  #2   Report Post  
Old July 9th 10, 05:41 PM posted to rec.games.chess.misc,rec.games.chess.analysis
external usenet poster
 
First recorded activity by ChessBanter: Oct 2008
Posts: 112
Default 8/pp4kp/4p3/6pP/4K3/5P2/PPP5/8 w - - 0 1 is a draw with eitherofthese moves

On Fri, 09 Jul 2010 04:23:59 -0700 in
,
raylopez99 wrote:

[Event "?"]
[Site "?"]
[Date "????.??.??"]
[Round "?"]
[White "New game"]
[Black "?"]
[Result "*"]
[SetUp "1"]
[FEN "8/pp5p/4pk2/6pP/4K3/5P2/PPP5/8 b - - 0 0"] [PlyCount "23"]

1... Kg7 (1... b5 2. a3 a5 3. b4 axb4 4. axb4 e5 5. Kd5


What's wrong with Kxe5 here? Seems to win to me?
  #3   Report Post  
Old July 9th 10, 06:23 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 8/pp4kp/4p3/6pP/4K3/5P2/PPP5/8 w - - 0 1 is a draw with either ofthese moves

On Jul 9, 11:41*am, Stephan Bird wrote:
On Fri, 09 Jul 2010 04:23:59 -0700 in
,

raylopez99 wrote:
[Event "?"]
[Site "?"]
[Date "????.??.??"]
[Round "?"]
[White "New game"]
[Black "?"]
[Result "*"]
[SetUp "1"]
[FEN "8/pp5p/4pk2/6pP/4K3/5P2/PPP5/8 b - - 0 0"] [PlyCount "23"]


1... Kg7 (1... b5 2. a3 a5 3. b4 axb4 4. axb4 e5 5. Kd5


What's wrong with Kxe5 here? Seems to win to me?


The K is on f6 in that variation, I believe.

With 1. ... b5, I wonder if 2. a3 is not a mistake, with 2. c3 being a
much superior move? On superficial analysis, it seems to win, but the
idea with 2. a3 and 3. b4 is sheer patzerdom in the ending, giving
away any chance of a win. Looks like more spit back engine nonsense.

But 2, c3 looks like the move to beat.

SBD
  #4   Report Post  
Old July 9th 10, 06:33 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 8/pp4kp/4p3/6pP/4K3/5P2/PPP5/8 w - - 0 1 is a draw with either ofthese moves

BTW, as usual, two positions were given, one with white to move
(originally) and then one with black to move. I assumed the second
position was the one to analyze from, but this level of repeated
sloppiness makes any assumption dodgy. But in that position 1. ... b5
looks like a losing move.

SBD

  #5   Report Post  
Old July 9th 10, 07:04 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 8/pp4kp/4p3/6pP/4K3/5P2/PPP5/8 w - - 0 1 is a draw with either ofthese moves

On Jul 9, 8:33*pm, sd wrote:
BTW, as usual, two positions were given, one with white to move
(originally) and then one with black to move. I assumed the second
position was the one to analyze from, but this level of repeated
sloppiness makes any assumption dodgy. But in that position 1. ... b5
looks like a losing move.

SBD


How does it lose, **** head?

Don't you know how to enter a FEN string into your PC engine?

Dumb and dumber.

RL


  #6   Report Post  
Old July 9th 10, 07:32 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 8/pp4kp/4p3/6pP/4K3/5P2/PPP5/8 w - - 0 1 is a draw with either ofthese moves

On Jul 9, 1:23*pm, sd wrote:
On Jul 9, 11:41*am, Stephan Bird wrote:





On Fri, 09 Jul 2010 04:23:59 -0700 in
,


raylopez99 wrote:
[Event "?"]
[Site "?"]
[Date "????.??.??"]
[Round "?"]
[White "New game"]
[Black "?"]
[Result "*"]
[SetUp "1"]
[FEN "8/pp5p/4pk2/6pP/4K3/5P2/PPP5/8 b - - 0 0"] [PlyCount "23"]


1... Kg7 (1... b5 2. a3 a5 3. b4 axb4 4. axb4 e5 5. Kd5


What's wrong with Kxe5 here? Seems to win to me?


The K is on f6 in that variation, I believe.


If Mr. Bird means a position with White to move and the black king
on g7, 1.Ke5 does not win. Black plays 1...Kh6!, and if 2.Kxe6 Kxh5
it's Black, with his passed h-pawn, who has all the winning chances.

With 1. ... b5, I wonder if 2. a3 is not a mistake, with 2. c3 being a
much superior move? On superficial analysis, it seems to win, but the
idea with 2. a3 and 3. b4 is sheer patzerdom in the ending, giving
away any chance of a win. Looks like more spit back engine nonsense.

But 2, c3 looks like the move to beat.


I agree, Steve. In the position with Black to move and the black K
on f6, 1...b5? appears to be refuted by 2.c3!. It looks like White can
then eventually force a passed pawn on the queenside by b2-b3 and c3-
c4, and once that occurs, Black is doomed. A reasonable sample line
after 1...b5 2.c3 is 2...a6 3.b3 e5 4.c4 bxc4 (or 4... b4 5.Kd5 a5
6.c5 etc.) 5.bxc4 Ke6 6.c5 a5 7.h6 a4 8.a3 Kf6 9. Kd5 and Black can
resign.
The problem with 1...b5 is that it's way too commital. As a general
endgame rule, unpasssed pawns should be moved sparingly, to preserve
one's options of "losing a move" and thereby avoiding or forcing
Zugzwang as required. Plaskett's recommended, non-commital 1...Kg7
does just that.

  #7   Report Post  
Old July 9th 10, 07:37 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 8/pp4kp/4p3/6pP/4K3/5P2/PPP5/8 w - - 0 1 is a draw with either ofthese moves

On Jul 9, 1:04*pm, raylopez99 wrote:
On Jul 9, 8:33*pm, sd wrote:

BTW, as usual, two positions were given, one with white to move
(originally) and then one with black to move. I assumed the second
position was the one to analyze from, but this level of repeated
sloppiness makes any assumption dodgy. But in that position 1. ... b5
looks like a losing move.


SBD


How does it lose, **** head?


1 ... b5?? 2. c3!!


Don't you know how to enter a FEN string into your PC engine?


Yes that is why giving white to move FENs with black to move is sloppy
on your part.

Dumb and dumber.


You aren't very bright, that is true.

SBD
  #8   Report Post  
Old July 9th 10, 08:14 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 8/pp4kp/4p3/6pP/4K3/5P2/PPP5/8 w - - 0 1 is a draw with either ofthese moves

On Jul 9, 2:32*pm, Taylor Kingston
wrote:
On Jul 9, 1:23*pm, sd wrote:





On Jul 9, 11:41*am, Stephan Bird wrote:


On Fri, 09 Jul 2010 04:23:59 -0700 in
,


raylopez99 wrote:
[Event "?"]
[Site "?"]
[Date "????.??.??"]
[Round "?"]
[White "New game"]
[Black "?"]
[Result "*"]
[SetUp "1"]
[FEN "8/pp5p/4pk2/6pP/4K3/5P2/PPP5/8 b - - 0 0"] [PlyCount "23"]


1... Kg7 (1... b5 2. a3 a5 3. b4 axb4 4. axb4 e5 5. Kd5


What's wrong with Kxe5 here? Seems to win to me?


The K is on f6 in that variation, I believe.


* If Mr. Bird means a position with White to move and the black king
on g7, 1.Ke5 does not win. Black plays 1...Kh6!, and if 2.Kxe6 Kxh5
it's Black, with his passed h-pawn, who has all the winning chances.

With 1. ... b5, I wonder if 2. a3 is not a mistake, with 2. c3 being a
much superior move? On superficial analysis, it seems to win, but the
idea with 2. a3 and 3. b4 is sheer patzerdom in the ending, giving
away any chance of a win. Looks like more spit back engine nonsense.


But 2, c3 looks like the move to beat.


* I agree, Steve. In the position with Black to move and the black K
on f6, 1...b5? appears to be refuted by 2.c3!. It looks like White can
then eventually force a passed pawn on the queenside by b2-b3 and c3-
c4, and once that occurs, Black is doomed. A reasonable sample line
after 1...b5 2.c3 is 2...a6 3.b3 e5 4.c4 bxc4 (or 4... b4 5.Kd5 a5
6.c5 etc.) 5.bxc4 Ke6 6.c5 a5 7.h6 a4 8.a3 Kf6 9. Kd5 and Black can
resign.
* The problem with 1...b5 is that it's way too commital. As a general
endgame rule, unpasssed pawns should be moved sparingly, to preserve
one's options of "losing a move" and thereby avoiding or forcing
Zugzwang as required. Plaskett's recommended, non-commital 1...Kg7
does just that.


I should add that the endgame principle of moving unpassed pawns
sparingly applies /especially/ to pawns still on their original
squares. Having the option of moving a pawn either one or two squares
can come in /very/ handy in avoiding or forcing Zugzwang.
  #9   Report Post  
Old July 9th 10, 08:18 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 8/pp4kp/4p3/6pP/4K3/5P2/PPP5/8 w - - 0 1 is a draw with either ofthese moves

On Jul 9, 2:14*pm, Taylor Kingston
wrote:

* I should add that the endgame principle of moving unpassed pawns
sparingly applies /especially/ to pawns still on their original
squares. Having the option of moving a pawn either one or two squares
can come in /very/ handy in avoiding or forcing Zugzwang.



Isn't that one of the endgame principles of Dvoretsky the
dogmatist?

SBD
  #10   Report Post  
Old July 9th 10, 11:42 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 8/pp4kp/4p3/6pP/4K3/5P2/PPP5/8 w - - 0 1 is a draw with either ofthese moves

On Jul 9, 3:18*pm, sd wrote:
On Jul 9, 2:14*pm, Taylor Kingston
wrote:

* I should add that the endgame principle of moving unpassed pawns
sparingly applies /especially/ to pawns still on their original
squares. Having the option of moving a pawn either one or two squares
can come in /very/ handy in avoiding or forcing Zugzwang.


Isn't that one of the endgame principles of Dvoretsky the
dogmatist?


Yes. In "Dvoretsky's Endgame Manual" he devotes a whole section,
about 12 pages, of his chapter on pawn endgames to the concept of
"reserve tempi." On page 58 (2nd edition, 2006) he writes:

The rules involved in the use of reserve tempi are simple and self-
evident:

1) Use every chance to accumulate reserve tempi and deprive your
opponent of his;
2) Hold onto them - don't waste them except under absolute
necessity.

Checking further in Dvoretsky, I see that he credits the whole idea
to Steinitz. On page 60 (or page 59 of the 1st edition, 2003) he
writes:

Steinitz's Rule

Wilhelm Steinitz, the first World Champion, put forth the following
paradox: that the pawns stand best on their original squares. His
explanation: IN THE ENDGAME, IT IS USEFUL TO HAVE A CHOICE OF WHETHER
TO ADVANCE A PAWN ONE OR TWO SQUARES. (emphasis in original)

As I recall, Steinitz propounded the whole concept of retaining
reserve pawn tempi no later than his "Modern Chess Instructor" in
1889. Thus it would seem anyone advocating 1...b5 in the position in
question is more than 120 years behind in his understanding of endgame
precepts.

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
On draws zdrakec rec.games.chess.misc (Chess General) 142 December 24th 07 01:56 PM
Counting knight moves foot rec.games.chess.misc (Chess General) 42 October 13th 07 01:12 PM
Draws at Linares 2007 David Kane rec.games.chess.misc (Chess General) 149 April 6th 07 03:35 PM
Interpretation of the fifty move draw rule [email protected] rec.games.chess.misc (Chess General) 9 May 17th 06 10:23 AM
Name three possible endings to a chessgame Ray Gordon rec.games.chess.analysis (Chess Analysis) 39 January 24th 06 10:45 PM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 11:58 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