click for larger view

<White held the draw by the moves> 1.c6 h5 2.Kb4 <and now White king either enters the square of the Black pawn or goes to support his own pawn. For instance,> 2...Kb6 3.Kc4 h4 4.Kd5! <and draw.>

<The motif of the Reti study has inspired many copy-cat studies of differing quality of execution. As several studies show, the idea of a king outside of the pawn-square still catching the pawn can occur also in the connection with other pieces.

We select two additional studies from among the numerous examples with the same material. First, it is the position by> C.J. de Fejter, Deventer Dagblad 1939:

click for larger view

White to move draws.

<Here the Reti idea is executed in the reversed order: Fist, White threatens to advance his own pawn, only afterward White king catches the enemy pawn;> 1.Kb7 a5 2.Kc7 Kc5 3.Kd7 Kd5 4.Ke7 Ke4 5.Ke6 Kxf4 6.Kd5 <and White king has entered the square of the a-pawn.>

<The second example is the position> J. Moravec, Ceskoslovensky Sach, 1952

click for larger view

White to move draws.

Richter's K+P book came out in 1958, though, as he hints in the foreword, in a reduced scope and after significant delays. (Apparently, the UJCS (Union of Czech Chess-players) originally had designs to publish an extensive encyclopedia of chess endgames; I assume, written by several authors. However, the political situation of those years in Czechoslovakia aborted many grand plans.)

Richter certainly knew Dedrle's works, in fact, he quotes Dedrle extensively; e.g., <... According to our own endgame expert F. Dedrle, Wiener Schachzeitung, 1928 expressed this well: "Despite all the objections, endgame skill is and will remain the main foundation for the title of the chess World Champion." ...> Richter also mentions Dedrle's unyielding support for the critical-square theory against the opposition-based theory promoted by J. Berger. (The critical-square theory was developed independently by Philip Ambrois abbe Durrand (1860) and Jan Drtina (1908). That may seem a funny way of putting it, but abbe Durrand's original work in La Regence was only re-discovered for the modern chess world by Miroslav Soukup in articles for Ceskoslovensky Sach, 1946/47.)

I've not time to write this in a propper way, so here are my additional findings, don't know if they support or confuse the scenery:

Fm sahovski informator, beograd, <encyclopaedia of chess endings>, pawn endings:

diagram 98:
Schlechter - Marco, Wien (m) 1893 (!)
<Kb7 Pa3, Kc4 Pd5>
1.? =
Solution: 1.a4 Kb6!!

diagram 120:
Reti
Kagan's Neueste Schachnachrichten, 1922
<Ka4 Pc6, Ka6 Ph6>
1...? =

So according to this source the idea is seen in diagram 98, but the study is from Reti.

<...Since 1921, when Reti created his most famous study and showed it often around Vienna chess clubs, the origins of the study have been many times discussed among the ranks of experts. In an open letter to the editor B. Kagan, (Kagans Neuste Schachnachrichten, #2, march 1922, pg 171) Reti defends his authorship (the study was at those times often presented in newspaper chess-columns as a position from the game of two unknown players, without an author) and adds that he got the idea from one unpublished end-game played in Vienna by Schlechter; but that he does not recall the exact position, just that the white and black pawns were fairly close together.

Later, several researchers (first, H. Staudte in Schach-Echo, 1968, no.2) reported a discovery of the mentioned endgame. It is the endgame> No. 179 from the double-issue 37/38 of Deutsches Wochenschach 1893, pg. 344

click for larger view

<We now cite the original source: "Position is from one game of a recent match C. Schlechter (White) - G. Marco (Black) that was recently played in Vienna. Now followed,>

52.Ke6 Kxb3 53.Kd7 Kxc4 54.Kxc7 Kxd5 55.Kxb6! Kc4 56.Kxb7 d5.

click for larger view

<Black, convinced that he holds the victory firmly in his grasp, was now surprised by the following continuation,>

57.a4 Kb4 58.Kb6!!

<This original move leads to a draw by force,>

58...d4 59.a5 d3 60.a6 d2 61.a7 d1Q 62.a8Q.

<Draw.">

(1) In 1893, Schlechter and Marco played a 10-game match from which the endgame above apparently came. The result of the match was a hard fought, yet curious +0 =10 -0.

(2) Reti, in Kagan Neuste Schachnachrichten, 1922 gives the position that Richter thought to come from Marco-Schlechter, 1895. The study starts one move later, with instructions: Black to move White draws.

<Gypsy: <cg.com> Could we get a sans-engines game next? >

What does the vow look like that binds all who sign up -- and I mean ALL -- to the use of no engines?

Seems very hard to enforce, even if 94.75% of the participants buy into the concept heart and soul. The game could last for months...and the temptation to see Rybka's second guess will be--for some--overpowering.

It seems to me that the only possible way to do that fairly, would be to agree that after, oh, move 15, a 25-ply Rybka ranking of the best moves would be published... and each team forbidden to make either of the top two (three?) choices!!!

Or perhaps something like this: in any 3-move sequence, Rybka's best move at 25-ply could only be played once.

Just as a referee-ing principle.

A third party judge could list or track the forbidden moves, or something.

At any rate, as fun as the no-engine concept sounds, there would have to be other rules agreed on to make it happen that way. Call it the "enhanced honor system."

I think the no engines rule worked fine in the Battle of the Brains II and in fact in the deep end game that in the post game analysis the engines actually could not grasp some of the ideas even at very high depths in fact many engines suggested a move that was losing for Black in the long run

I would rather leave it to the integrity of the participants and believe me in a no engine game its hard to convince the voters..

<AgentRgent>, <Gypsy>, <Eyal>, <BlueWave>, <Artar1> and many others including myself spent hours arguing over the moves (in a friendly way heh) each of us posting variations and counter variations

trust me its a real load of fun!!

I came to a conclusion that involves the theoretical perspective on chess, which I know is of some interest to you.

click for larger view

Here White correctly moved 26.Bb3, as Black threatens to capture the piece with Rd7 now impossible. Yet as I looked at that move, I said to myself "he's on the run! After him, boys!" and I could not imagine any move but 26...a5.

Now at first I explained my immediate (and apparently correct) intuition by the theory of "pattern recognition"; that I have simply seen enough similar games to know that that is what should be done. This, of course, involves a certain amount of hand-waving but to some extent it must be true; I have seen Black chasing that Bishop a thousand times over in Sicilians.

But why was I *sure* that this was the move, even though all sorts of routine, thematic ideas are not good in a lot of specific situations - and a zesty attacking position like this requires very situation-specific thinking. Was I simply being pig-headed?

Well, I thought, 26.Bb3 serves absolutely no purpose but to remove his bishop from attack. The fact that White has, in a sense, given me a free move could have suggested to me that Black should do something active and generate counterplay. But on the other hand, it is just one move! One move is important, yes, but this was still unsatisfying somehow.

That's when I realized, hey, his move 26.Bb3 is also *communicating* something: White is saying, "I have no immediate threat". If he were threatening something really crushing, he would have gone ahead and done it, hang the Bc4 it's just a Bishop and we're talking about the attack here. That means a move like 26.Bb3 is fundamentally different from a "quiet move in the attack" - for instance, imagine that 26.Kc1 instead had possessed some mysterious yet enormous potency. If White had gone 26.Kc1, that would not be saying "I have no threat"; he might have a hammer-blow that simply didn't work without 26.Kc1.

Now actually, White is sort of just on the verge of being able to do just what I said, and go on attacking without saving the Bc4. He has the threat g5 which, given the perils of capturing the pawn, practically wins the knight whenever White manages to play it. But 26.g5 Rxc4 27.gf Qxe4 is an ending where Black is perfectly happy. If 26.g5 were a little more dangerous, 26.Bb3 would be unnecessary.

So 26.Bb3 nominally gives Black one tempo, but *tells* Black that he has *at least two tempi* (in this case only two) to do something interesting before White runs him over. So I may have unconsciously known, more or less immediately, that Black has time for a5-a4 - which is after all a bit odd in a way, fooling with your a-pawn while you are being mated.

We have all been there: For a want of a preparatory tempo or two, we had to spend our precious time on defensive measures, structural fixes, or prophylaxis.

Therefore, because Bb3 was such an obviously insipid move, you were certain that Black had at least two tempos to try to dispute-, perhaps even seize the initiative.

S. Moucka
"Svetozor" 1878

click for larger view

1...♗xg4 variation

click for larger view

1...♘xg4 variation

click for larger view

and

click for larger view

1...♖xc2 variation

click for larger view