< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 5 OF 5 ·
|Feb-19-08|| ||TheaN: 2/2
114....Rf6+ salvages the half point for Kasparov.
115.Kxf6 stalemate =
115.Ke8 Rxf5 116.Nxf5 =
<sombreronegro: I was thinking ... Ra5. >
How is 115.Ng6# not checkmate that way ? Remember that you're removing the rook from the g6 defence.
|Feb-19-08|| ||newzild: Easy peasy today - only took about two seconds with yesterday's puzzle fresh in my head.|
|Feb-19-08|| ||JG27Pyth: <In 1979 the 50-move rule did exist as well, but at that time there were exceptions for some endings...>|
Oh thank god, I didn't hallucinate this! I knew I distinctly remembered there was some exception to the 50 move rule for some NN v P endings... the rule has been changed? Since 1992 you say?
I'm always the last to know.
|Feb-19-08|| ||OBIT: Yes, the rule is now 50 moves for anything. That is certainly for the best, since it's ludicrous to believe any human can play these endings perfectly. Back in the 1970s, when endgame databases were just getting started, I remember how extremely difficult it was for anyone to beat a computer with a database in the K+Q vs K+R ending. Even GMs could not get the mate in 50 moves - just ask Walter Browne! |
However, if you think this rule is unfair - I mean, here you've studied K+N+N vs K+P, you get to the ending in a game, and you realize you can't win it in less than 50 moves, bummer! - then there are a whole bunch of new limits that need to be defined. Allowing 100 moves for K+N+N vs K+P is just the tip of the iceberg - heck, how about this K+R+N vs K+N+N position, which requires 262 moves to win...?
Mind boggling, eh?
|Feb-20-08|| ||An Englishman: Good Evening: Just for fun, I composed an ending where NN&B win vs. R. It's not a beauty, and I'm not a composer, but it might amuse you.|
White: Kb6, Bc7, Nd7, Ne7
Black: Ka8, Rc8
White mates in 4.
1.Nxc8?? is stale, and Black threatens 1...Rxc7!, so 1.Nd5!
1...Rh8; 2.Ka6,Rh6+; 3.N(either)b6+,Rxb6; 4.Nxb6X
1...Rd8; 2.Ka6!,Rxd7; 3.Nb6X
1...Rb8+; 2.Ka6,Rb1; 3.N(either)b6+,Rxb6; 4.Nxb6X
The key is that White's Ne7 must be able to occupy two squares that are already occupied by White's King and Bishop. He must also avoid a lot of stalemate traps. I hope you like it, flaws and all.
|Jan-08-09|| ||WhiteRook48: so this is the "crazy rook" draw?|
|Mar-01-09|| ||WhiteRook48: do you know FEN?|
|Jul-26-09|| ||WhiteRook48: stalemate traps are the key here|
|May-09-11|| ||sevenseaman: GOTD? Ah yes; it may have taken a whole day to conclude!|
|May-09-11|| ||MaxwellsDemon: While not necessarily the most clever, certainly the most poignantly titled game I've seen in a while.|
|May-09-11|| ||HeMateMe: Can't white just win this game by playing 32.Q x Q?.|
White then has 3 minor pieces for the Rook.
|May-09-11|| ||SBarrett449: Looks like Kasparov was intent on playing for a draw early on in the game?|
|May-09-11|| ||piltdown man: Grandmaster draws! I've had enough of them!|
|May-09-11|| ||newzild: One hell of a game.
Cute shot at the end, too.
|May-09-11|| ||hedgeh0g: Couldn't Black have claimed a draw on move 113 by the 50-move rule?|
|May-09-11|| ||kevin86: Three pieces SHOULD win vs a rook. However,in practice,a win is virtually impossible-especially against a champion.|
Upon further review,NN+B vs rook appears to be a draw because black can exchange R for B and leave the opponent with a bare two knight draw.
|May-09-11|| ||drnooo: great title guys the best you've ever had they were the best, nobody else in their day even close not until krammnik and even then the match was way too short|
|May-09-11|| ||Phony Benoni: <hedgeh0g> With the last capture or pawn move on White's 63rd, Black had the opportunity to claim the draw before making his 113th. But that would require calling in the arbiter and a lot of muss and fuss. |
So he goes ahead and sets the stalemate trap with <113...Ra6+>. If Karpov avoids it, no big deal; he can just claim on the next move. But Karpov is apparently in the mood to create a future Puzzle of the Day for chessgames.com, and "falls for it".
Then again, maybe not. Who knows what these guys are thinking about?
|May-09-11|| ||TheChessGuy: The pun refers to a documentary film about the Rumble in the Jungle, the legendary title fight between Muhammad Ali and George Foreman in Kinshasa in 1974. One of the best movies about boxing I've ever seen; any fan of the Sweet Science should check it out.|
|May-09-11|| ||checkmateyourmove: Fantastic pun for an interesting game!!|
|May-09-11|| ||shalgo: Cool. My name for the game was picked. I almost didn't notice.|
|May-09-11|| ||Penguincw: It's been a while since we saw these kings play chess.|
|May-09-11|| ||WhiteRook48: Kasparov is the best|
|May-11-11|| ||W O C E: I know it's great for the fans, but man, weren't these guys just so tired of meeting each other at this point?|
|Apr-26-15|| ||mikealando: Wow wowowowowowow! Man! Legendary status well deserved for these two.|
< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 5 OF 5 ·