I don't know what point I'm trying to make, if any, but it was interesting to see that Kamsky could win this game...

<The rook and pawn endgame they reached "should" be drawn, but it turned into an adventure. Several times it looked like a simple draw, but Bacrot avoided the simple and Kamsky kept up the pressure. It came all the way down to rook versus knight with no pawns! This is tricky but usually drawn at the master level but both players were terribly short on time (no time increment in Sofia) and reaching the seventh hour of play, it was far from tablebase perfect. It was drawn, then lost, then drawn, then finally Kamsky put the hammer down after the Frenchman's final mistake.>

It does seem that if White is going to play d3 against the "normal" Ruy Lopez, there will be a greater focus on 4. d3 against the Berlin, in place of the constant 4. 0-0 Nxe4 5 d4 Nd6 etc. we see now.

I agree that the comments you quote are stupid, but it should be said that it is much easier to play it for the defending side with the king+knight in the middle of the board, like in that game. Even I would have held a draw against Nakamura there, I'm fairly sure... Bacrot had a much more difficult task although he too would probably have saved it if only MTel used increments, as ought to be standard.

http://www.chessbase.com/newsdetail...

Hodgson insisted that another arbiter, in 1989, was right to rule Suba the winner when I had two knights vs his pawn (he was white and the pawn was at h6) when my flag fell. I had offered a draw only a move or two earlier. Julian cited a recent instance where he had played Nunn, had a Rook vs Nunn´s Knight, and had lost on time when Nunn had but 6 seconds remaining. There seemed no consensus on whether arbiter David Eustace had correctly ruled against my appeal that the game with GM Suba be called a draw. IM Pein later told me, "MANY people agreed with it." IM Hartston wrote in The Independent that when setting the rules for The Master Game GM tournament, some years earlier, their first rule was, "We are all gentlemen." He added, "There were never any disputes."

Rook versus a knight: this is usually a draw. There are two main exceptions: the knight is separated from the king and may be trapped and won or the king and knight are poorly placed (Nunn 2002a:9).[8] Kamsky vs Bacrot, 2006 is an example of a rook vs knight ending which resulted in a win. In this game, Black underpromoted a pawn to a knight to avoid a checkmate and eventually lost the game after allowing his knight to be separated from the king.[9]

Black avoid a loss and hope for a draw which happens most of the time in these endgames...

woldsmandriffield:

click for larger view

Although Bacrot ultimately lost, he played the star move in this game: 63..Ke4!!

keypusher: This ending is featured in de la Villa's <100 Endgames You Must Know> as a sort of in-between case to the R v. N ending where the king and knight are in the center of an edge row (Ke1, Nd1, say) which is a relatively easy draw, and the same ending with the king and knight in the corner, which is a quick loss.

Here's the game after Kamsky has played 78.Rf2-f8, which has the virtue of forcing Bacrot to decide on a course of action.

click for larger view

Bacrot played 78....Ng2, which de la Villa calls a knight's "dumb square" (along with its counterparts on b2, b7, and g7, of course). It's not a mistake, but easier would have been 78....Nc2, and if 79.Kf3 Kf1, without many problems. Other kibitzers have dealt with the course of the game after 78....Ng2 79.Kf3 Kf1? 80.Kg3+? Kg1 81.Kf3 Kg1 82.Rf7! (Kamsky sees it!) Ne1+ 83.Ke3+ Kg1 (83....Kg2 also loses to 83.Ke2) 84.Ke2 Ng2 85.Rh7 and the last pair of errors that followed.

I would have played 78....Nd3, which loses quickly after 79.Kf3!!. Moving away from the mating square and stepping in front of the rook seems strange to me, but it wins. First, of course, it prevents 79.....Kf1 because of the discovered check. Second, 79....Nf2 loses after 80.Rd8 Kf1 81.Rd2. Third, 79....Ne5+ 80.Ke4 and the g-file is off-limits, so the knight keeps getting driven further away and eventually lost. Fourth, 79....Ne1+ 80.Ke2 Ng2 81.Rh8 (81.Rg8 also wins, but less quickly) 81....Nf4+ Kf3 and again the king and knight are driven apart. Basically, what happened in the game after 85....Rh7.

Just to illustrate how unfair chess is in general and this ending is in particular, here is the position after 89.Re4, immediately following 88.Ke2? (88.Ke3 wins) 88....Kg2! (only move).

click for larger view

The knight has three squares that don't lose immediately: c6, d7, and f7. The tablebases tell us that 89....Nc6 and 89....Nf7 (which Bacrot played) lose; 89....Nd7, which takes the knight as far from the king as possible, draws.

How unjust is that?

See something that violates our rules? Blow the whistle and inform a moderator.