< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 3 OF 4 ·
|Sep-08-12|| ||pawn to QB4: Fabulous game. I think the move many can learn from is 23.Nb1. All he has to do is announce he's playing 23.Bb4 and it's a draw against one of the greatest players. Fights on and wins. There are plenty who wouldn't risk it in a local league match.|
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.
|Sep-08-12|| ||MarkThornton: <FSR: But wait - isn't KBN v. K a draw? R Kempinski vs Epishin, 2001>|
No - Epishin missed multiple paths to win that endgame.
|Sep-08-12|| ||Eyal: <pawn to QB4: I think the move many can learn from is 23.Nb1. All he has to do is announce he's playing 23.Bb4 and it's a draw against one of the greatest players. Fights on and wins. There are plenty who wouldn't risk it in a local league match.>|
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.
|Sep-08-12|| ||newzild: <Shams: Public service announcement, <newzild>'s winning line with 54.Rg5+/55.Rxg3 was given on page one by <Jimfromprovidence>.>|
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.
|Sep-08-12|| ||Prosperus: Kramnik could try to test Nakamura in that endgame, but the black King was already in the light-square corner whereas black had light-square bishop.|
|Sep-08-12|| ||Marmot PFL: Next time they play in an individual tournament I will probably be for Kramnik. Nakamura is too full of himself sometimes.|
|Sep-08-12|| ||Tadeucouto: Very good game.
Great Nakamura'wins !
|Sep-08-12|| ||kevin86: White promotes to a knight and then wins the three piece vs one endgame...|
|Sep-08-12|| ||Check It Out: <FSR> and <Sneaky> Thank you! Very cool.|
|Sep-08-12|| ||Jimfromprovidence: <Shams> <newzild> |
I must confess that I got tipped off that there was something there after 53…f4 by sheer accident. I looked at the summary of the engine analysis from the tournament website. It rated 53…f4 at +6.29 for white and the played move 54 Kf1 at only +3.49.
So I took the position after 53…f4 and ran with it.
<kingcrusher> explains it in some detaill in his video.
|Sep-08-12|| ||Eyal: For ICC members, there's a good review of this game by Joel Benjamin at http://webcast.chessclub.com/Olympi...|
|Sep-08-12|| ||Everett: GM Henley commentates here. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e9--...|
What I found most interesting was Henley mentioning Nakamura missing a few straight forward simplifications to a won endgame. Worth watching.
|Sep-08-12|| ||Robed.Bishop: <Zugzwang247> Then I apologize for my errant guess. Welcome to the site. |
|Sep-08-12|| ||Zugzwang247: <Robed.Bishop> Not a problem. Unfortunately, the internet abounds with cases of mistaken identity. :-) At any rate, I am sorry that I de-railed the discussion a bit.|
|Sep-08-12|| ||Robed.Bishop: Not your fault.|
|Sep-08-12|| ||FSR: <MarkThornton: <FSR: But wait - isn't KBN v. K a draw? R Kempinski vs Epishin, 2001>|
No - Epishin missed multiple paths to win that endgame.>
Apparently if I don't append a smiley face or something someone will assume that everything I say is serious.
|Sep-08-12|| ||bischopper: why if it is easier change p for Q?|
|Sep-08-12|| ||bischopper: <FSR> If the King vs. KBN is closed behind one corner from colour of the bischop...|
|Sep-08-12|| ||Abdel Irada: <FSR: But wait - isn't KBN v. K a draw? R Kempinski vs Epishin, 2001>|
I now know that you were joking, but ...
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.
|Sep-09-12|| ||FSR: <Abdel Irada> Very impressive that you managed to pull off the mate in your second tournament game. GM Epishin would be green with envy. I can only recall seeing (in person) the ending thrice. The first time, I witnessed Alberto A Artidiello (now the co-owner of this site, then my high school classmate) win it in a tournament game. Albert's opponent, like yours, defended poorly, running to the wrong corner. The second time, the next round of a big tournament I was playing in was delayed an hour or so while an expert unsuccessfully tried to execute the mate. The third time, I had the bad side of the ending in a game on FICS. My opponent, down to his five-second increment, tried to mate me before the 50-move rule kicked in. After 30-something moves he had gotten nowhere and offered a draw.|
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.
|Sep-09-12|| ||Abdel Irada: <FSR>: I respectfully differ. My own experience as well as yours suggests that knowing the ending (on both attack and defense) *could* have made a difference in some of our own games — even if not necessarily an advantageous one for ourselves. And a certain GM Epishin would certainly have profited by knowing how to execute it.|
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. :-)
|Sep-09-12|| ||FSR: <Abdel Irada> I know the ending cold once either (a) the king is trapped in the wrong corner, (b) he's boxed in (for example, king on d7, shut in by my Nd5 and Bb5) or (c) the king is in the other corner, and I have to rope him over to the other corner. Frankly, I'm not sure how easy a time I would have starting out from a random position if the other guy defended tenaciously, especially if I only had five seconds a move or some such. Is there someplace online where one can play it out against Crafty or some such?|
|Sep-09-12|| ||perfidious: In 1983, I made John A Curdo play it out and was subjected to scorn by a well-known New Hampshire player and director (also master level), which I laughed off, because I didn't care what he thought.|
|Sep-09-12|| ||Abdel Irada: <FSR>: I haven't really looked at the ending in some time, since long before there was a Crafty. Nor have I been particularly systematic. My method, such as it is, has simply been to set up "random," difficult positions (pieces uncoordinated, defender's king near center of board) and then try to win them as efficiently as possible.|
<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?
|Sep-09-12|| ||FSR: <perfidious> Like you, I would play it out. In the game that decided the 1997 World Junior Championship, Morozevich made Shaked prove that he knew how to win it. Shaked vs Morozevich, 1997 I'm guessing that Epishin's opponent didn't think that the GM would fail to win it - but you never know. (Epishin proved shockingly ignorant, even trying to mate the king in the wrong corner!!) The ending has occurred 136 times in CG.com's database (about 1 out of every 5,000 games). Endgame Explorer: BN vs K Fifteen players (11%) have failed to win it. Endgame Explorer: BN vs K Epishin is not even the only GM to do so: E Inarkiev vs F Peralta, 2007; I Zakharevich vs A Bratchenko, 2001. And here's an IM screwing it up: W Wittmann vs T Meszaros, 2006. And a 2390, a 2385, and a 2333: S Shoker vs J Elbilia, 2011; Ding Yixin vs A Kashlinskaya, 2010; S Djuraev vs T Vandenbussche, 2010.|
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.
< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 3 OF 4 ·