Well, I don't think it's fair to refer to their refusal as "disrespect". It's their right to decline the draw offer if they think there's a reasonable chance for a win.

You may remember that some on team black were advocating draw offers after move 27 (it got up to 31%). Had we offered a draw then, would it have been disrespectful for white to refuse? It was only afterwards that we discovered all sorts of pitfalls in the ensuing endgame. The queen ending we thought would draw was actually lost, and the other (rook) ending looked like it might be lost too for a long time.

I think white should have refused that draw offer, and it would not have been the least bit disrespectful. I see no reason to think that their refusal just a few moves later (move 31) is disrespectful either. It just means that they have been looking at plausible lines where white emerges on top. It behooves them to decline the draw in that case.

<However, refusing a subsequent draw offer doesn't seem spiteful to me under these circumstances. How would our refusal to accept a draw offer be any more spiteful that theirs?>

Our refusal of a white offer at this point seems spiteful because we have already announced to them that we think the game is drawn.

To put the sequence of draw offers into words,

Black: <31...Kf8 w/ draw offer> We think this game is drawn. Do you want to call it a draw?

White: <32.Kd3> No, we still think there may be a chance for us to win.

White: <future move w/ draw offer> Okay, you were right, it is a draw. Do you want to call it a draw?

Black: No. Even though we still think it's a draw, and see no real chance for a black win, we are refusing your draw offer because of ______.

click for larger view

I think this position gives us the best chance and Black the most opportunity to slip

35.h4 Kd6 36.g3 f6 37.c4 Rc5 38.Ra1 Ke6 39.Kc3 g6

click for larger view

I am sure this position can be reached by transposition, e.g. playing c4 earlier for white, which is an issue as Black cannot be forced into very much at all.

The updated ATSS is ready for downloading from the following RapidShare link. This download link is also posted in the Sticky.

http://rapidshare.com/files/3622446...

This version of the ATSS contains all the posted analyses through Sep-03-13, 21:00 USA EST, just before 34...Rb5 was posted. It contains 28 still-applicable analyses, 11 with evaluations. 12 new still-applicable analysis were added since the last ATSS update.

The move we were expecting since the only alternative to protect the a-pawn, 34...Ra8, was quickly shot down by <OhioChessFan>. So no AK, AK, AK for him this time.

We have looked at 3 responses to Black's 34...Rb5:

(a) 35.c4: 12 analyses, 8 with evaluations. The most direct and active move, attacking the Rb5 and forcing it to move to c5 if they want to continue to protect the a-pawn. It also provides a square for our king to advance and allows our rook to swing over to either the d-file or the f-file (to hinder ...f5) if desired.

(b) 35.g3: 13 analyses, 2 with evaluations. A waiting move. We're trying to provide Black with as many chances to go wrong as we can, and this is one attempt. In several analyses, primarily by <morfishine>, Black's ...f4 (after ...f5, of course, I didn’t want you to think that I made a typo) turned out to be advantageous. So 35.g3 is aimed against that move and, if played, will make Black wonder what we're up to.

(c) 35.h4: 3 analyses, 1 with evaluation. Another waiting move to also give Black chances to go wrong. In some analyses Black's ...h4 served them well, so this move is aimed against that.

I want to thank <morfishine> and <OhioChessFan> for carrying most of the recent analysis burden. We are a team and as a team we have different strengths and interests, so this game is like a relay. During some stages of the game some analysts carry the burden and then they pass the "analysis baton" to others who continue. And we all need to take analysis breaks on occasion, so that works out well.

In a correspondence game where the material value suggest an inevitable draw unless a plunder is made, the edicts suggests to credit the opponent for knowing how to reach a theoretical draw position.

In our game where playing f7-f5 forces a theoretical draw because: a) Blacks king is within striking distance of whites only threat to queen an outside passer. b) in a pursuing one rook each plus pawn ending the winning side must be able to establish a” protected free pawn”.

Therefore in our position white must gain the a-pawn to establish a winning threat. While 4 pawns on one side of the board against 3 may have a chance to win for black but never for white.

If either side offers a draw it takes into account that either player could give up a pawn and still can lead the game into a theoretical draw position.

Let's always remember that the folks on the other team are our friends.

They are our comrades in the exhibition games against the OTB and CC GMs that we have played.

I personally know, have met or spoken with over a dozen of our chessgames.com brethren.

They are all great chess enthusiasts and fine people.

I am grateful for the game no matter the rhyme or reason or result.

The most obvious maybe, the best, hmmm. I could not get it to work.

We are discussing...

35.h4 Kd6 36.g3 f6 37.c4 Rc5 38.Ra1 Ke6 39.Kc3 g6

click for larger view

Now I tried...

40.b4 axb4 41.Kxb4 Rc8 42.Ra6+ Ke7 43.c5 f5

click for larger view

== and we have the age old issue of f5 neutralizing our c-pawn advance.

Personally, I don't have a problem with them declining the draw offer. And I am quite happy to see this game go on a while yet, until it is plainly obvious to all chess team members that it is in fact a draw.

In fact for some chess players on the teams, something could in fact be learn't about endgames that they did not already know for we are not all at the same level of chess knowledge and ability. And its quite common for chess players to have some weakness in their endgame techniques.

In a correspondence game where the material value suggest an inevitable draw unless a plunder is made, the edicts suggests to credit the opponent for knowing how to reach a theoretical draw position.>

Well, I suspect that you're the most experienced person on our team at serious correspondence play. Had you ended up on team white, it's likely that black would be considering resignation about now.

However, I don't think that the serious correspondence chess edicts are applicable here. As <chess to play> points out, this is a friendly, casual team game with our fellow websitemates. It involves many people at all different skill levels -- including many who never play correspondence chess and know nothing about its etiquette rules. Also, few of us have your ability to so easily recognize the drawishness of the position.

Offense/Defense Line: 34.Ra2 Rb5 35.h4 (Stops counterplay based on 35...h4)

35...Ke6 36.g3 (Obstructs a Black central advance contesting f4)

36...g6 37.Ra1 (Activates the rook; Postponing <c4> is critical; Controlling <d4> far outweighs forcing the Black rook to <c5>; Our c4-advance should be made solely with the view to moving our King to c3 in the final phase)

*****
Black has and soon will have a number of 'breaks' at his disposal. In a number of lines, the most annoying is <h4>. I think this should be removed as an option first. For example, inaccurate for White would be 35.c4 Rc5 36.Kc3 <36...h4> and Black is well on his way to achieving a solid set up after g5 & f6. I think we should undercut this plan.

But the point may be moot if we can easily transpose. The idea is to arrive at a position where Black is either forced to concede positionally or forced to make an outright poor move. Looking at your diagram after 35.h4 Kd6 36.g3 f6 37.c4 Rc5 38.Ra1 Ke6 39.Kc3 g6

click for larger view

The correct plan for White is now <40.Rd1> Threatening 41.Rd8

click for larger view

Black must now choose between 40...Ke7 or 40...Rc8 or ignore and plow ahead with 40...f5

(1) 40...Ke7 41.Rd2 (Black is in partial zugzwang since any King move lets our rook into d8, d7 or d6)

(2) 40...Rc8 41.Rd5 Ra8 (threatening a favorable liquidation starting with 42...a4) But White holds onto the connected Q-side pawns after <42.Kb2> 42...a4 43.b4 a3+ 44.Ka2 f5 45.exf5+ gxf5 46.Rd1 and White has a positional advantage

(3) 40...f5 41.exf5+ gxf5 42.Rd8 White has a definite advantage due to the passive Black rook and our now active rook

*Note: The move order I favor arrives at similar positions which offer similar themes

Finally, a huge thanks to <OhioChessFan> for first suggesting <g3> and secondly working through various move orders, all with a view to securing more than a slight advantage

<capafan> I've been looking at versions of b4 as well, although without as many pawn moves on the kingside. If we go into the line you examine, I don't think Black can afford ...f5, at least not right away. For example in your last diagram:

click for larger view

White has the choice of 44. Rxg6 or 44. exf5 gxf5 45. Rh6

One drawback of ...f5 that we have only touched upon in passing is it weakens the h5 pawn after exf5 gxf5 and it can be difficult for Black to defend it.

I've been looking at something like 35. c4 Rc5 36. Kc3 g6 37. b4 axb4+ 38. Kxb4 Rc8 39. c5 f5 40. exf5 gxf5

click for larger view

but I can't quite get it to work.

If 41. Ra6 then 41...Rb8+ 42. Kc4 Rb2 should be enough to draw.

Maybe 41. Kc4 e4 42. Kd5

click for larger view

I don't know. It's still a work in progress.

Black might be able to hold back ...f5 and wait for us to try to force something.

39...Ke6 40. Kc4 Rc7 41. Ra6+ Ke7 42. Kd5 f6 43. c6

click for larger view

I don't think they can allow that, so I think Black would have to look for better.

click for larger view

44...Ra4 45.Rb5 f5 46.exf5 gxf5 47.c5 e4 ==

click for larger view