|
< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 3 OF 3 ·
Later Kibitzing> |
Dec-08-06
 | | RandomVisitor: The only move that loses is a5. The rest of the moves, including a6 and Kh4, win for Black. |
 |
Dec-08-06
 | | jahhaj: Maybe the point of this puzzle is to find the plan not the precise moves. Anyone who said to themselves 'I'm going to swap off the pawns on the f, g and h files and then march my king over and take his e pawn' was on the right track. |
|
Dec-08-06
 | | playground player: After bombing out Tuesday-Wednesday-Thursday, finally got one. But by move 34, the really smart moves have already been made. I doubt I would have gotten to where Black was by move 34. |
|
Dec-08-06
 | | cu8sfan: I found 34...g4 because I thought that the pawn on f3 is the only thing preventing the black king to find an entry route. 36...h4 surprised me and I don't think I've solved the puzzle because of that. |
|
May-16-09
 | | Gypsy: <Anyway, 30.Kh1 was a blunder - 30.a4 or 30.b5 was in order.> I don't think so, the configuration of the Q-side pawns should not decide this end-game. Yours is the point of view that seems to originate with Jonathan Speelman and Andrew Jonathan Mestel in 'Analysing the Endgame'. (If I understand the writeup in 'Abiba Rubinstein: Uncrowned King', by John Walter Donaldson and Nikolay Minev correctly, Mestel was the one who found the lines, Speelman wrote the book.) My point is this: While the Mestel lines are perceptive and correct, they became relevant only because Rubinstein sort of misplayed the endgame when he played the <34...g4(?)>. This move brought the position into a realm of study-like, tempo-based drawing resources and study-like tempo wins. In contrast, Black win is relatively simple after <34...e4(!)>. In fact, after the <34...e4>, the configuration of pawns on the Q-side is not relevant! 
click for larger viewBlack wins regardless of who has the turn to move; for instance, 1.Kh1 e4
I. 2.fxe4 fxe4 3.Kg1 h4 4.Kh1 g4 5.Kg1 g3 6.hxg3 hxg3 7.fxg3 Kxg3 ... II. 2.f4 gxf4 3.exf4 Kg4 ...
III. (or, fishing for a stalemate) 2.Kg1 exf3 3.Kh1 h4 4.Kg1 g4 5.Kh1 g3 6.Kg1 g2 7.e4 Kg4 ... (say, ... 8.e5 Kg5 9.e6 Kf6 10.e7 Kxe7 11.h3 Kd6 12.Kh2 Kd5 13.Kg1 Kd4 14.Kh2 Kd3 15.Kg1 Ke2 16.Kh2 g1Q+ 17.Kxg1 Ke1 18.Kh2 Kxf2 19.Kh1 Ke2 20.Kg1 f2+ 21.Kh2 Kf3 22.Kh1 f1Q+ 23.Kh2 Qg2#.) |
|
May-16-09
| | Gypsy: I should add that the pawn configuration on the Q-side can become of utmost importance in the continuation that Rubinstein did use: <34...g4> If now ...35.fxg4! hxg4 36.Kg1 f4 37.exf4 exf4 38.Kh1... we get the position M1:
click for larger viewMestel shows that, after some study-like play, the 'natural' <1...g3?> only draws, while the 'contra-intuitive' <1...f3!> wins. Consider, however, also the related (twin) position M2: 
click for larger viewIn M2, unless I am severely missing something, it is the rather 'natural' <1...g3!> that wins, while the contra-intuitive <1...f3?> draws! |
|
May-16-09
| | Gypsy: The key variations from those diagrams are:
M1:
(A) 1...<g3>? 2.hxg3 fxg3 3.fxg3 Kxg3 4.Kg1 Kf3 5.Kf1 Ke3 6.Ke1 Kd3 7.a4! (the save) .... (7...a6 8.axb5 axb5 9.Kd1 Kc3 10.Kc1 Kxb4 11.Kb2... =; 7...Kc3 8.axb5 Kxb4 9.Kd2 Kxb5 10.Kc3... 11.Kb2... =) M2:
(A') 1...<g3>! 2.hxg3 fxg3 3.fxg3 Kxg3 4.Kg1 Kf3 5.Kf1 Ke3 6.Ke1 Kd3 7.a4... (not here) 7...Kc3 8.axb5 axb5 9.Kd1 Kxb4 10.Kc2 Ka3 ... 0-1. ---
M1:
(B1) 1...<f3>! 2.Kg1 Kh4 3.<Kf1> Kh5! ... (important tempo work) ... 4.Ke1 Kg4 5.Kf1 Kf4 (5.Kd2? Kh4) 6.Ke1 Ke4 7.Kd2 Kd4 8.Kc2 Kc4 9.Kd2 Kb3 10.Ke3 Kxa3 11.Kf4 Kxb4 12.Kxg4 a5... 0-1 (B2) ... 3.<Kh1> Kg5 4.h3(!) gxh3 5.Kh2 Kg4 6.Kg1 Kf4 7.Kh2 Ke4! 8.Kxh3 Kd3 (8.Kg3 h2 9.Kxh2 Kd3) 9.Kg4 Ke2 10.Kg3 a6 (tempo and zugzwang) ... 0-1 M2:
(B2') 1...<f3>? 2.Kg1 Kh4 3.<Kh1!> Kg5 4.h3! gxh3 5.Kh2 Kg4 6.Kg1 Kf4 7.Kh2 Kg4 ... = 7...<Ke4>? 8.Kxf3 Kd3 9.Kg4 Kc3 (9...Ke2 10.Kg3...zugzwang) 10.Kxf3 Kb3 11.Ke4 Kxa3 12.f4 Kxb4 13.f5 Kc3 14.f6... (White queens just in time to win) |
|
Jan-24-11
 | | Once: Hmmm - gxf3 is either:
(a) a strong attacking move in the opening and early middlegame because it gives you a half open g file to play with; (b) a weak move in the opening and early middlegame because it gives your opponent a half open g file and weak h pawn to play with; or (c) a weakness in the late middlegame/ ending because the isolated h pawn is very hard to defend. Discuss. |
|
| Jan-24-11 | | Oceanlake: Cohn loses tempi, and Rubinstein can count. |
|
Jan-24-11
| | Gypsy: Looking again at the position
click for larger viewI suddenly had a bit of a trouble to reconstruct Black win after 1.Kh1 e4 2.fxe4 fxe4 <3.f3!? exf3 4.Kg1 h4 5.e4...> My problem was that after 5...Kg4? 5.Kf2 Kf4 7.e5 Kxe5 8.Kxf3 Kf5 9.h3..., the endgame would end in a draw. But Black still has a win if he simply ignores the passed e-pawn. After <5....g4!>
Black pawn-avalanche slams into White king and wins the footrace in the process (e.g., 6.e5 g3 7.hxg3 hxg3 8.e6 g2 -- 8...f2+ 9.Kf1 Kh2 10.e7 g2+ 11.Kxf2 g1Q+ 12.Kf3 Qe1... also works -- 9.e7 Kg3 10.e1Q f3#). |
|
| Jan-24-11 | | amateur05: I love this game. It is so simple and beautiful. Thanks to cg for making it a game of the day. |
|
Jan-24-11
 | | kevin86: This was an old puzzle-in totality,the game is a good lesson tool. Black is able to exchange off pawns to get the upper hand with the remainder. White's king is pinned on the first row,while black clips off the remainder of the pawns. Another kind of Ruberstein masterpiece! |
|
Jan-24-11
 | | chrisowen: Times endgame?!
Molten steal black wedge compact machine rise evaluation sky high netting the premise born out it jip c-file rook needed. Cohn's alchemy scratch ET off little melee Rubinsteins apparant king hiding aim ammass whitecoat pawns ado get taken away levelling Erichs corona off. |
|
| Jan-24-11 | | YoungEd: This pun relies on err = air. However, my mama would be quick to say that the preferred--nay, the correct--pronunciaion of "err" is "ur" (and indeed my dictionary lists that first). Oh, well. |
|
| Jan-24-11 | | WhiteRook48: nice! 39 f4 (only freeing move) 39...exf4 40 e5 f3 41 e6 g2 42 e7 Kg3 43 e8=Q f2# 0-1 |
|
Jan-24-11
 | | mjmorri: Nothing difficult about this game. Cohn allows his pawn structure to be disrupted and erroneously trades down into a lost King and pawn ending. Pretty routine win for someone like Rubinstein. |
|
| Jan-24-11 | | Petrosianic: An excellent example of 20/20 hindsight. |
|
Jan-24-11
| | lionel15: He was a great player Rubenstein. To play so correctly (though not always the best move)is good to see. Remember this was 1909, but he was in his prime |
|
| Jan-25-11 | | azax: This is a very charming GOTD. A small weakness in White's pawn structure leads to instant death in the endgame. |
|
| Feb-07-11 | | splatty: < chrisowen: Times endgame?!
Molten steal black wedge compact machine rise evaluation sky high netting the premise born out it jip c-file rook needed. Cohn's alchemy scratch ET off little melee Rubinsteins apparant king hiding aim ammass whitecoat pawns ado get taken away levelling Erichs corona off.> Hehe, great words. |
|
Feb-10-11
| | chrisowen: <splatty> Hi pus doxic for id enrol call knights tour d6 c4 ive really made the grade hook led ram space hatrick pawn movement lie landbouwbelang le g3 it feeds in. Dead cleric opening knight mutton why alfie rook c1 arrivederci. |
|
Dec-07-11
 | | Peligroso Patzer: [from Aug-24-05]
<RookFile: Yeah, you want to dope slap Cohn for playing 24. Rc1. As the saying goes: "All rook endings are drawn", which is what he can get with something reasonable like 24. f4>[from Dec-08-06]
<RookFile: *** Something that not enough people talk about is 24. Rc1. That was a mistake. <The moral of the story is: if you want a draw, keep the rooks on the board. It's by far the safest way to draw.>> Chess is not so simple that it can be reduced to the application of reliable maxims (such as “all rook endings are drawn”). There are exceptions, such as this game: Alekhine vs Reti, 1922
In which Reti realized that exchanging rooks (with <57. … Rxg4!>) would assure him of a draw from this position (black to move): 
click for larger view Keeping rooks on the board with <57. ... Rc4> (from the position in the diagram above) would probably have left black with a lost position after <58. g5>. |
|
Mar-04-12
| | Peligroso Patzer: As several kibitzers have already noted, Cohn was probably lost after his dubious <24. Rc1?!> (which possibly should be given simply "?"), and it was inevitable he would lose the resulting position with Rubinstein across the board. Nevertheless, the remaining phase of the game holds much interest. For example, extremely interesting is the position in the second diagram below (which did not occur in the game but could have arisen if Cohn had played <35. fxg4!?> instead of his actual <35. e4?!>, which was routinely losing) in this position: 
click for larger viewAfter the further hypothetical continuation <35...hxg4?!> (Better here - and more likely to have been played by Rubinstein - is <35. ... fxg4!>, but players of less-than-immortal stature would probably find the capture "towards the centre" more natural. The position after <35. ... hxg4?!> is still theoretically winning for Black, by the way, but the technical burden is much greater than after <35. ... fxg4!>.) ... <36.Kg1 f4 37.exf4 exf4 38.Kh1 g3?> (Correct is <38. ... f3!  >, the only move that wins by force, as demonstated in analysis by IM Steve Giddins presented in the source cited infra.) <39.fxg3 fxg3 40.hxg3>, the resulting position would have been: 
click for larger viewThe position in the diagram above appears to be winning for Black due to the much stronger position of his King. Averbakh, among others, gave the line reaching this position as “ ”. Nevertheless, White surprisingly can hold, as follows:
<40. ... Kxg3 41.Kg1 Kf3 42.Kf1 Ke3 43.Ke1 Kd3 44.Kd1 Kc3 45.a4! a6> (No better are either (A) <45...bxa4 46.Kc1=>; or (B) <45...Kxb4 46.axb5 Kxb5 47.Kc1=>) <46.axb5 axb5 47.Kc1 Kxb4 48.Kb2=> producing the following drawn position (with Black to move):
click for larger viewThe foregoing analysis is taken from the recently published book, <The Greatest Ever Chess Endgames>, by Giddins, Steve, Everyman Chess ©2012, at pp. 16-17. |
|
Mar-04-12
| | Peligroso Patzer: [from May-16-09]
<Gypsy: *** My point is this: While the Mestel lines> (*) <are perceptive and correct, they became relevant only because Rubinstein sort of misplayed the endgame when he played the <34...g4(?)>. This move brought the position into a realm of study-like, tempo-based drawing resources and study-like tempo wins. In contrast, Black win is relatively simple after <34...e4(!)>. *** >(*) - <Note by PP: - The referenced "Mestel lines" demonstrate a draw after a hypothetical <35. fxg4 hxg4 36. Kg1 f4 37. exf4 exf4 38. Kh1 g3?> [In this line, only the "study-like" <38. ... f3!> wins.> Although <34. … e4!> is unquestionably the simplest win and therefore objectively better than Rubinstein’s <34. … g4>, the above comment exaggerates the defects of Rubinstein’s choice at move 34. The position only would have become “study-like” if
<A> Cohn had played <35. fxg4> (instead of his actual <35. e4?> – played one move too late; although inadequate even there, at move 34, the advance of the e-pawn would have been White’s best defensive try); <and>
<B> Rubinstein had played the second-best (but still winning) <35. … hxg4>. In that case, at move <38>, Rubinstein would have been required to find the “study-like” <38. … f3!> instead of the obvious (but inadequate) <38. … g3?>. It is impossible to be certain whether, when Rubinstein played <34. … g4(?!)>, he had worked out that after <35. fxg4>, the correct reply would have been <35. … fxg4!>. It seems unlikely that at move 34 anyone (even Rubinstein) would have worked out and been relying on the "Mestel line" with <38. ... f3!>, but it is not too difficult to believe he had worked out that <35. ... fxg4> was best in response to <35. fxg4>; if so, then the great Akiva had analyzed a continuation that was winning without significant difficulty and had the endgame fully under control. If he might actually have played <35. … hxg4?!> in response to a hypothetical <35. fxg4>, then he was a bit off-form (for him) that day and was perhaps fortunate that Cohn erred (again; cf. <24. Rc1>) with <35. e4?>. |
|
Mar-04-12
| | Peligroso Patzer: Of the final position:
click for larger viewIM Steve Giddins (op. cit. [supra, in separate post from earlier today]) writes simply, “White clearly loses the e4-pawn.” (at p. 17) This is a bit oversimplified. White could have tried <39. f4!?>, but it would have been to no avail, as these lines demonstrate: <39.f4!?> [or 39.f3 g2 40.f4 exf4 41.e5 Kg3 42.e6 f3 43.e7 f2#] <39...exf4 40.e5 f3 41.e6> [or 41.Kf1 g2+ 42.Kf2 (42.Kg1 Kg3 43.e6 f2#) 42...Kh2 43.e6 g1Q+ 44.Kxf3 Qe1–+] <41...g2 42.e7 Kg3 43.e8Q f2#>, with this final position resulting: 
click for larger view |
|
|
|
< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 3 OF 3 ·
Later Kibitzing> |
