| Sep-13-17 | | mbvklc: Probably not Aronian's proudest win. |
|
| Sep-13-17 | | john barleycorn: <mbvklc: Probably not Aronian's proudest win.> Probably, not your proudest comment? |
|
Sep-13-17
 | | tamar: Only goes to prove that with an hour and a TableBase, anyone can learn to play this ending better than the best OTB players in the world. |
|
| Sep-13-17 | | starry2013: Dubov left nearly 30 minutes on the clock which he could have used to get a draw near the end. |
|
| Sep-13-17 | | dehanne: Averbakh wept. |
|
| Sep-13-17 | | mbvklc: <john barleycorn: Probably, not your proudest comment?> I take pride in none. |
|
| Sep-13-17 | | JimNorCal: <starry>: Dubov left nearly 30 minutes on the clock which he could have used to get a draw At a certain point in tha game, people speculated that Dubov saw the win and purposely played fast. Obviously, Aronian had NOT seen the win. There was no reason to agonize over defensive moves and give Aronian extra time. I realize that at some points in the endgame there WAS a draw, which Dubov did not find. You'd have to match up timestamps with moves to prove or disprove the theory. |
|
| Sep-13-17 | | 4tmac: 
click for larger view ...Bf3! draws is the "idea". Note that with the White King adrift as here, W to play is drawn since g4+ Kxg4! |
|
| Sep-13-17 | | Marmot PFL: Black finally loses on move 92...Bd3?, a somewhat strange move as the bishop was not in danger or e4 nor does it attack anything from d3. 92...Ke5 was a draw, intending Kf4 and Bf3, and 93 Rf2 Kd4 ^ Ke3 Bf3 is the same. |
|
| Sep-13-17 | | Marmot PFL: None of this could have happened if the white king had stayed on e5, where it belonged. |
|
| Sep-13-17 | | cro777: Aronian: "I analyzed this endgame a long time ago but I couldn't find the win. It was so embarrassing. Probably people are sitting there with tablebases and laughing at me!" Position after 44…Kxe7
click for larger viewThis endgame is theoretically won. With best play from both sides White mates in 61. The main line is: 1. Kf2 b4 <Black cannot keep both pawns> 2. Ra4 Be6 3. Rxb4 Kf6 4. Kf3 Bd5+ 5. Kg3 Ba8 6. Kh3 Bd5 7. Rb6+ Be6+ 8. Kg3 Kf5 9. Rc6 Bd7
10. Rc7 Ba4 11. Rc4 Bd1 12. Kh3 Bb3 13. Rc5+ Kf6 14. Kg3 Bd1 15. Rc1 Bb3 16. Rc6+ Be6 17. Kf3 Kf5
18. Rc5+ Kf6 19. Ke4 Bd7 20. Kd5 Be6+ 21. Kd6 Bb3 22. Rc1 Kf5 23. Ke7 Kf4 24. Rc5 Bd1 25. Rc3 Bg4
26. Kf6 Bd7 27. Rc7 Be8 28. Rc8 Bd7 29. Rc3 Be8 30. Rf3+ Kg4 31. Rf5 Bd7 32. Rxg5+ etc Aronian explained why he and Dubov made so many ("tablebase") errors in this game: "In this tournament players do not show their best play because there's so much at stake, especially for me as I am trying to qualify for the Candidates', so it's very stressful." |
|
| Sep-13-17 | | ChessHigherCat: <cro777: Aronian: "I analyzed this endgame a long time ago but I couldn't find the win. It was so embarrassing. Probably people are sitting there with tablebases and laughing at me!" This endgame is theoretically won. With best play from both sides White mates in 61> Ho, ho, ho! Aronian misses a mate in 61. Oh, my sides are splitting! <Aronian explained why he and Dubov made so many ("tablebase") errors in this game:"In this tournament players do not show their best play because there's so much at stake, especially for me as I am trying to qualify for the Candidates', so it's very stressful."> I remember I made a comment about how people make ridiculous predictions about these guys' whole careers based on a single game, but so much depends on "human factors" such as whether they got a good night's sleep or have pressing personal/financial problems, etc. Chancho agreed with me but I got one lordly comment to the effect of:: "Miserable human. Champions are far beyond such puny earthly concerns", which I find absurd, and <Perfidious> said that he leaves all such concerns behind him when he plays poker, which may be true for him and more power to him, but in general people's performance depends on human factors, too. I |
|
Sep-13-17
 | | An Englishman: Good Evening: To me, a "tablebase win" means "too hard to solve over the board." Therefore, no, I do not laugh at Aronian. Let us instead give him credit for daring to sacrifice two pawns for the sake of gaining an advanced passer. |
|
Sep-13-17
 | | HeMateMe: the great players find a way. What an interesting middlegame, when the smoke clears, after move 20. |
|
| Sep-13-17 | | cro777: <ChessHigher Cat: Aronian misses a mate in 61. Oh, my sides are splitting!> You are right. It isn't possible to memorise (or calculate over the board and under the pressure) the long lines of correct moves in complex theoretical endgames. Instead, it is necessary to know the winning (or drawing) method in a given type of endgame. As Aronian admitted, this type of endgame was not unknown to him but over the board he simply couldn't recall whether (and how) it is won or it is a draw. A similar endgame (with the pawns on the h-file) appeared last month in his game against Navara at the St. Louis Rapid and Blitz tournament Aronian vs Navara, 2017. Position after 40.Rxc5
click for larger viewThis endgame (with best moves from both sides) is a draw. |
|
| Sep-13-17 | | ChessHigherCat: <cro77: A similar endgame (with the pawns on the h-file) appeared last month in his game against Navara at the St. Louis Rapid and Blitz tournament Aronian vs Navara, 2017. Position after 40.Rxc5
This endgame (with best moves from both sides) is a draw.> Thanks for pointing out that game to me. I never could have found it in a million years but I cheated and read <Tessathedog>'s excellent post on that game and set up the necessary zugzwang position on the tablebase. Absolutely amazing. Even if you can manage to arrive at the zugzwang position, it's mate in 24 with optimal play by both sides! |
|
| Sep-14-17 | | cro777: <ChessHigherCat: I read <Tessathedog>'s excellent post on that game> <Tessathedog> described the plan adopted by Aronian in his recent blitz game against Navara, the same plan which had been adopted by Rubinstein in his game against Salwe 1908 with colours reversed (analysed in Dvoretsky's 'Endgame Manual'). Dvoretsky also analysed his endgame against Chistiakov from the Moscow Championship 1966. Chistiakov- Dvoretsky. Black to play.
click for larger viewThis endgame is a theoretical draw.
1...Bh3! 2. Rxa6 Bd7 3. Rd6 Bg4+ 4. Ke3 Bc8 5. Rd8 Be6 6. Rd4 Bc8
click for larger viewThe only winning attempt is a transfer of the king to f6 followed by Rd5. Black responds with a counterattack against the g3-pawn. |
|
Sep-14-17
 | | FSR: <cro777> It's important to realize that in that ending White can win Black's pawn by force, yet Black still draws! 
click for larger view1...Kg4! 2.Rxg5+ Kf3 3.Ke5 Bg4 etc. |
|
| Sep-14-17 | | ChessHigherCat: <cro777> and <FSR>: I see, thanks, the point is that you can't memorize every possible ending but you can apply certain strategies, like black's giving up his own pawn for a tempo to win white's pawn and arrive at a drawn K&B vs. K&R ending or, in Tessathedog's example, driving the opponent's king into the northeast corner of the board to reach a zugzwang position. The objective must be to reach the point where you can recognize which type of strategy to apply in a given ending. That approach greatly simplifies matters but I'm not sure whether it's more or less complicated than learning the basics of openings. On the one hand, endings are simpler, because fewer pieces are involved, but on the other hand, endings don't seem to fall into manageable categories as neatly as openings (King's Indian, etc.), although there are general categories such as "Rook & Pawn" endings. |
|
| Sep-14-17 | | cro777: Jonathan Bryant: "Anybody who says it's not worth learning theoretical endings should ponder MVL's situation right now." A similar endgame (rook vs bishop with one pawn for each side), but with pawns on adjacent files, appeared today in Grischuk vs M Vachier-Lagrave, 2017 . The game decided on the qualification for the quarterfinals of the World Cup 2017. Grischuk was winning until this position:
click for larger viewWhite to move can select among Rg5, Rg4, Kf6 and h4. Only one of these moves is wrong and misses the win. Here, Grischuk made a decisive mistake and MVL moved on to the Final 8. A full analysis of both games, Aronian – Dubov and Grischuk – MVL, by GM Efstratios Grivas (author of the book ' The Modern Endgame Manual: Mastering Rook vs Pieces Endgames’) you can find here: https://chessdailynews.com/wp-conte... https://chessdailynews.com/wp-conte... |
|
| Sep-14-17 | | ChessHigherCat: <cro777: Jonathan Bryant: "Anybody who says it's not worth learning theoretical endings should ponder MVL's situation right now."> What you say is undoubtedly true for a professional or even a serious amateur tournament player, but it's a daunting task for the other 95% of us. The "endgames" page of this website has over 100 "basic categories" of endgames, many of which refer you to over 100 games each! Even if you could cover all the basics, which would be extremely time-consuming for a non-professional, you would have to have an extraordinary memory to recall the proper technique in a given position. |
|
| Sep-16-17 | | Toribio3: Aronian is an expert in a very complex endgame. This game requires precision. |
|
| Sep-16-17 | | Grbasowski: 41. ... Rxe7? Why not? |
|
| Sep-16-17 | | wordfunph: Rxh7+ |
|
Jan-20-25
 | | DaltriDiluvi: In his book "A Matter of Endgame Technique" - which is 896 pages long - Jacob Aagaard writes: "This game is perhaps the most complex one in this book." |
|
Kibitzing
sac: 96.Rxe4+