< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 4 OF 4 ·
|Feb-15-06|| ||Stonewaller2: <patzer2: Does this mean that if a player attempts to castle by first touching the Rook instead of the King, that the opponent can force that player to move the Rook instead of castling? If so, sounds like a pretty nit picky rule to me . . .> Yep.|
<. . . which is not in the spirit of the game.> I wouldn't advise trying it on any superannuated masters. But one of my opponents once forced me to move a piece I had touched in order to squash a bug which had landed on it. Good thing for me he missed the ♕ fork he had on his next move . . . ;)
|Feb-15-06|| ||YouRang: <patzer2: Does this mean that if a player attempts to castle by first touching the Rook instead of the King, that the opponent can force that player to move the Rook instead of castling? If so, sounds like a pretty nit picky rule to me> |
But I'm sure you understand why it's there.
If you move the rook first (say, from h1 to f1), your intentions are ambigous -- are you castling or just moving the rook. You could "change your mind" after releasing the rook.
Whereas, once you move your king from e1 to g1, castling is the only move you can make.
|Feb-15-06|| ||AlexBabich: I think that if you have a bishop on the board you can move for 80 moves without a capture or a pawn move. I am not sure though. I read something about it in the official chess federation rules book.|
|Feb-15-06|| ||ganstaman: Sorry if this was mentioned already, but I was recently in a game that left me with K+R vs K+R+N. It felt to me like it was going to be a draw (until I succumbed to the time pressure and allowed the Knight to fork my king and rook), but I wasn't sure. So, is K+R+N vs K+R a theoretical draw?|
Also, if possible (otherwise I'll just go searching on my own) can someone tell me the basic idea of how to mate with a B and N? Thanks.
|Feb-15-06|| ||MiCrooks: A couple comments. Many blitz games are governed by clock move rather than touch move, in recognition that a move is not made (ie you can still lose on time) until the clock is punched AND as you mentioned it needs to be done with the same hand.|
The fact that this was a draw from the moment the last pawn was taken (based on tablebase) I find it hard indeed that after defending for over 50 moves Hansen gets a loss based on one blunder! Credit to Gurevich however as he jumped on the only winning response to Rc7 (Bc4) and played the winning moves from there out (it was something like mate in 22! with best play).
The difference between the move played (and other losing moves) and the three moves that kept the draw seems to be the ability to switch to checks from the side if needed.
|Feb-15-06|| ||dkulesh: why would you play people that did not know all the rules of chess, why play patzers when good players are everywhere?|
|Feb-15-06|| ||Jacobb: In Friendly blitz,I usually play, once you have hit the clock,this is the end of your turn. As long as my opponent lets his clock run he\she can pick up the peices and juggle them for all I care.;P. Not to long ago in a tournament I had a player complain to the director because I touched my rook first, to castle. It was a closed game so ym king was safe enough where this wasnt entirely neccesary but I needed to connect my rook along the g file, the tourament director decided that I must still move the rook,no big deal ,It just took a few extra moves to castle:)|
|Feb-15-06|| ||patzer2: <dakgootje> Congratulations on solving the K+N+B vs. K puzzle. Remember the 50-move rule is in effect on these positions. So some study of the key positions could be helpful in avoiding the draw.|
|Feb-15-06|| ||WannaBe: <ganstaman> For B+N+K vs K ending and you want to mate, force the K to one of the corners that your bishop controls.|
If you join up for premium membership, you can look at it with endgame explorer. I'll give you a link to one game. (Out of 44 games in database =)
Xu Jun vs Wang Yaoyao, 1997
|Feb-15-06|| ||patzer2: <dkulesh> <why would you play people that did not know all the rules of chess, why play patzers when good players are everywhere?> Lots of reasons:|
1. In an open tournament you don't always have a choice.
2. I don't mind playing weaker players if they are genuinely trying to improve their game.
3. I enjoy teaching the game to those willing to learn, and give novices a break (especially for first time offenses) on such refinements as touch move etc.
4. Sometimes even strong players don't know "all the rules."
5. I would hope stronger players (experts and masters) would occasionally allow me to play them, and in turn I should be willing to occasionally play weaker players trying to improve.
6. If I were single and she was really good looking...On second thought, scratch this one -- I love my wife and she will disaprove if she sees it.
|Feb-15-06|| ||EmperorAtahualpa: Like some other, 160.Bb3?? was my idea..not good, not good at all. :(|
|Feb-15-06|| ||fgh: <6. If I were single and she was really good looking...On second thought, scratch this one -- I love my wife and she will disaprove if she sees it.>|
|Feb-16-06|| ||dakgootje: <patzer2> I think i managed to mate it in about 10-15 moves, so i wasnt really afraid of the 50-move rule =)|
|Feb-17-06|| ||patzer2: <dakgootje> Some K+N+B vs. K endings can take up to 33 moves with best play, and if you don't know them you can exceed 50 moves.|
|Feb-17-06|| ||dakgootje: <patzer2> which is exactly why i try to avoid such endings =)|
|Apr-07-06|| ||gauer: Obviously, the superior side of a checkmate-forcing position of > 50 moves can still win, since in many cases, the inferior side does not know when he can correctly claim that he can holdthe draw for 50+ moves. The Tim Krabbe page has recently posted some (7-piece) mates in 310 moves, far above the horizon of the longest game currently followable in Chessbase. I'm sure there's even some pseudo-k-Merediths (10 pieces or less total, and mate in k moves, k>2) that the Fritz engine easily solves with complete accuracy for most positions. |
Does anyone have a plot of % of accurate Fritz guesses of pseudo-k-Merediths as a function of k, and what the upper limit for k is when k is finite and non-drawing (pumping this up to say 16-piece endings is still likely way out of our current ballpark)?
Finally, do the ending tablebases which Chessbase sells have a switch for turning on when FIDE changes a rule to mate before K moves or it's a draw? Or will the ending tablebase report a mate in #54, even though there is knowledge that the opponent could theoretically claim the 1/2 by move 50. I wonder what % of the tablebase circuits would be required to have their game-value, recommended mating path, and recommended attack potential (for instance if I knew I had to try and mate in 10 rather try and mate in 75, I may play differently in the same position...) changed as a function of K (it seems to be an exercise for serious programmers)?
|Jan-17-09|| ||WhiteRook48: This ending doesn't always win. Sometimes the winning side blunders into a draw.|
|May-03-09|| ||WhiteRook48: over already?|
|Nov-01-09|| ||Peligroso Patzer: <WhiteRook48: This ending doesn't always win. Sometimes the winning side blunders into a draw.>|
Actually, most pawnless R+B vs. R positions are theoretical draws, but the defense often blunders into a loss. In this game, Hansen found two "only" drawing moves (147. ... Kc1 and 148. ... Rh7), but then in this position after 149. Be6:
click for larger view
he failed to find any of three drawing moves (149. ... Ra7; 149. ... Rh6; or 149. ... Rh6) and played the losing 149. ... Rc7. In reply, Gurevich found the "only" winning move (150. Bc4) and never let Hansen off the hook after that. In fact, Gurevich played the most accurate (fastest path to mate) move each move for the rest of the game.
The above analysis relies on the tablebase available at: http://www.k4it.de/index.php?topic=....
|Nov-01-09|| ||Peligroso Patzer: < Feb-15-06
kevin86: Would it be bizarre if under the present rules -- not in effect at that time -- that after 160... Rb8 161 Ra5+ Kb1 162 Bd3+ black claims a draw -- or would an announcement of a forced mate override the 50 move draw request/demand? (A moot point since <the rule in force in 1986 allowed for a 100 move count in such positions as this>.)>
For the record, the last pawn move or capture in this game was 91. Rxh2. Since the final position is a forced mate-in-four (culminating in 164. Rxb1#), Gurevich needed 73 moves in this instance, so it was lucky for him that the 50-move rule was not in effect for this type of position in 1986.
As far as whether a player on the brink of being mated could be “saved by the ‘bell’” (in the form of the 50-move rule), here is a recent game where that is exactly what happened:
Ivanchuk vs Kamsky, 2009
Since 64. Rxg4 was the last pawn move or capture in the above-linked game, any 114th white move would have made the draw. Ivanchuk’s bizarre-looking 114. Rd4+ allowed a capture that would have re-started the count, but it came one move too late for Kamsky.
|Nov-01-09|| ||Peligroso Patzer: <Correction>:
In the position in the diagram presented in my first post from earlier today, the third drawing move would have been <149. ... Rh8>. (I inadvertently listed 149. ... Rh6 twice and omitted 149. ... Rh8 in my original post.)
|Nov-01-09|| ||Peligroso Patzer: I suppose two instances don't exactly establish a trend, but nevertheless I find it interesting that the following game is another example of a game in which an American with the benefit of Soviet-system training garnered a full point from a theoretically drawn ending against a Skandinavian player named Hansen:|
Onischuk vs S B Hansen, 2006
|Jun-01-11|| ||kevins55555: Black is going to cry out for help and pray for mercy but White won't allow him! |
White Rook: Ha ha!
Black King: *praying* Please, God, let me out of this mating net!
|Dec-02-11|| ||Penguincw: Amazing! White never gives up and wins the game.|
|May-27-16|| ||offramp: 160 moves!
"When I said next year in Jerusalem I didn't mean the same game."
< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 4 OF 4 ·