Inspiring. I know I've learned from his attitude. A few years ago I had the choice of an offered draw or a dodgy pawn sac in a match between Sheffield and Hull. Next to nothing rides on it, but I usually took such offers. After 25 minutes of dithering I remembered him saying something like "There is absolutely no point making draws". I fluked that game and have rarely accepted draw offers since. Grading's gone up 100 points, chess has been more interesting.

No - Epishin missed multiple paths to win that endgame.

I share the sentiment, but it's also worth noting the context of Nakamura's decision. When this game was played, in the 9th round, the Russians were already leading by two points on the USA and their other closest rivals (15/13), so winning the match against them was pretty much the last opportunity to reopen the fight for the gold medal - and considering the situation and pairings on the other boards, agreeing to a draw in this game was practically giving up hope to win the match.

Oh, if Jim posted it too then that suggests that it does indeed win. But I should give credit to Jim for posting it first.

TYPICAL!

<kingcrusher> explains it in some detaill in his video.

What I found most interesting was Henley mentioning Nakamura missing a few straight forward simplifications to a won endgame. Worth watching.

Cantankerous. Lol.

Apparently if I don't append a smiley face or something someone will assume that everything I say is serious.

Don't tell Al Winslow. He was my opponent in my second-ever tournament game, the one I had to beat with precisely ++ vs. . I did win it, but I was worried all along because he missed a number of more challenging defenses, and if he'd seen them I might have been hard put to finish him within 50 moves.

Incidentally, IM Jeremy Silman in his books recommends that one not bother studying the ending. He argues that it occurs so rarely that if you devote the time you would have spent on it to, say, studying rook endings, you'll get a better return on your time investment. If you do study it, there's a good chance that you'll never have a chance to use the fruits of your labor.

As I later discovered, winning the ending isn't as complicated as it appears. There is a recurring pattern of moves of knight and bishop that effects the crucial objective of forcing the king out of the wrong corner. Granted, in a real game there's the proverbial "many a slip," particularly since merely by defending *incorrectly*, a defender can throw one off one's pattern, but I am still glad to have learned the essentials. If nothing else, opponents who know I know them tend to resign rather than play out the position and make me prove it. :-)

<perfidious>: You're not wrong to make even a master-strength opponent prove he can win this ending. As GM Epishin's debacle shows, even very strong players sometimes have gaps in their knowledge. And what's the worst that can happen? You can lose after a long struggle rather than resign immediately. More work may be required, but is the result any different?

It would be kind of cool if FIDE enacted the "Botvinnik rule" and stripped any GM who gave up a draw in this ending of his title - at least for a month or so.