Endgame Statistics

vs.

The superior side (black) wins 72.1% of the time. This game, a good example.

The inferior side salvages a draw 22.3% of the time.

The inferior side steals the "1" 5.6% of the time.

<Indeed Adams seem to confirm this afterwards saying that he didn't like his 16.Bd2 and said "I just missed everything simply." Adams>

De plus, le plan des noirs dans ce cas est de mettre en évidence l'inutilité de Fb5 grâce à une diagonale vide après que McShane aie joué 8...Ce7. Mais il faut pour cela que Adams aie déjà joué Cc4 pour ainsi le fou reste sans aucune bonne case et soit obligé à se recycler à travers l´habituel Fa4 et Fa2, mais sans perte de temps de la parte de McShane (c'est à dire, sans jouer ...a6 et ...b5)

Cela nous amène à un développement sans tension centrale, avec les pièces noirs plus proches du roi blanc et les fous blancs visant, si tout va bien et le centre se dégage favorablement, au roque noir.

Quand McShane joue 12...c5 c'est évident qu'il veut recycler le fou, donc c'est le moment pour Adams de l'attaquer, mais si on si on se rend compte que les doubles pions à la colonne b ne sont en réalité pas du tout mauvais pour McShane on peut dire que c'était une perte de temps pour Adams de faire ça (et c'est étrange de trouver des mouvements comme celui-ci dans un joueur si bon quand on parle de stratégies !); on peut recommander 13.Ce3 (pour aussi réussir à centraliser le cheval après trois mouvements), et le jeu pourrait continuer de la façon suivante : ...Fc7 14.d4 cxd4...

click for larger view

...15.cxd4 Rc8 16.Fc2 Re8 17.Re1 Fd7...

click for larger view

...18.dxe5 dxe5 19.Rc1, avec possibilités de spéculations pour les deux parties.

<Ulhumbrus: Kramnik said in the commentary box that in reply to 18...Bxh3 Adams could have accepted the sacrifice, returned a piece and won it back by 19 gxh3 Qxh3 20 Qe2 <whiteshark: Luke said afterwards that he had seen <20.Qe2> and that he'd planed to play <20...Ra8> to create problems / complications, even though it might not have been the best choice, computerwise.> Ng4 21 Qf1! Qxf3 22 Bd1!! winning back the piece by skewering black's Queen to the N on g4>

Comme vous avez bien vu le sacrifice n’est pas mauvais quand le joueur ne veut atteindre que le perpétuel, sinon je crois qu'il ne sert à rien. Après 19.gxh3:

click for larger view

...Dxh3 20.De2 Ra8, et maintenant un embranchement:

Bien 21.Fc2...

click for larger view

...Dg4+ 22.Rf1 Dh3+ avec perpétuel.

Où 21.dxe5...

click for larger view

...Dg4+ 22.Rh2 Dh5+ 23.Rg2 Dg4+ avec perpétuel aussi.

Or il y a un autre essai qui est beaucoup plus dangereux pour les noirs : le susmentionné 20...Cg4:

click for larger view

...21.Df1 Dxf3 22.Fd1 Dxf2+ 23.Dxf2 Cxf2 24.Rxf2

click for larger view

Are you willing to pay him as much and to provide him with as great a degree of financial security if he does?

It may be worth repeating Botvinnik's quotation of Lasker's remarks. I don't remember them exactly, but they go something like this:

<GilesFarnaby 11: The popularity of the system with d3 is more positional than others in the Ruy Lopez and normally is accompanied by an early h3 to limit the c8-h3 diagonal white to black crazy. These Bc5 position to put pressure on f2, but always with the threat of Ng4 In addition, the level of black in this case is to highlight the futility of FB5 with a diagonal empty after IEA McShane played 8 ... Ne7. But this requires that Adams ale CC4 already played the fool so is no good case and is forced to recycle through the usual F2 and F4, but without loss of time from McShane (that is, without playing ... a6 and ... b5)

This leads to a development without central tension, with the parts closest to the black king and white to white fools, if all goes well and the center emerges favorably to black castling.

When McShane played 12 ... c5 is obvious he wants to recycle the fool, so it's time for Adams to attack, but if you if you realize that the double pawns in column b does are actually not bad for McShane can say it was a waste of time for Adams to do that (and it's strange to find movements like this in a player so good when it comes to strategies! ) may be recommended 13.Ce3 (to also succeed in centralizing the horse after three movements), and the game could continue as follows: ... ... cxd4 14.d4 FC7

... Re8 17.Re1 15.cxd4 Rc8 16.Fc2 ... Bd7

... 18.dxe5 dxe5 19.Rc1 with speculation opportunities for both parties.

<Ulhumbrus: Kramnik said in the commentary box that in reply to 18...Bxh3 Adams could have accepted the sacrifice, returned a piece and won it back by 19 gxh3 Qxh3 20 Qe2 <whiteshark: Luke said afterwards that he had seen <20.Qe2> and that he'd planed to play <20...Ra8> to create problems / complications, even though it might not have been the best choice, computerwise.> Ng4 21 Qf1! Qxf3 22 Bd1!! winning back the piece by skewering black's Queen to the N on g4>

As you have seen the sacrifice is not bad when the player wants to reach the constant, otherwise I think it is useless. After 19.gxh3:

... Dxh3 20.De2 Ra8, and now a branch:

Although 21.Fc2 ...

... DG4 22.Rf1 + + with perpetual DH3.

Where 21.dxe5 ...

... 22.Rh2 + DG4 DG4 DH5 23.Rg2 + + with perpetual too.

Now there is another test that is much more dangerous for blacks: the aforementioned 20 ... Ng4:

... 21.Df1 Dxf3 22.Fd1 Dxf2 + 23.Dxf2 Cxf2 24.Rxf2

click for larger view

As they say about British buses, you wait ages and then two come along together, since Micky followed this loss by losing again the next day to Nigel Short.

Not that I'm waiting for Micky to lose, of course, I greatly admire his play.

It is strange how form can change; it is just a few weeks since Micky put on a brilliant individual gold-medal performance in the European Team Championships.