< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 9 OF 9 ·
|May-14-06|| ||Open Defence: yes Monad ♖e6+ seems a clear way to get a passed e pawn... then it looks like White cannot defend on both flanks|
|May-14-06|| ||TylerD: Yep. I remember playing throug Re6+ in my head while following the game - figuring it was at least as good as RC6.|
|May-14-06|| ||monad: <Ezzy: 17.Bg5 The plan is to take the knight and then occupy d5> For White to win, or rather 'not lose' this game, I think we may have to go back as far this move.
As soon as I saw Anand play it, I felt uneasy. I am looking at the line <17.Qd3> instead. |
Maybe followed by 17...Rfe8 18.a4 h6 19.Bd2 Ra8 20.Ra3 cxd5 21.exd5
|May-14-06|| ||Ulhumbrus: Instead of 53 Rxd6, 53 Rf3 gets ready for 54 h4, or for 54 Kxg5. The c3 pawn keeps the black Rook out of d4. 53 Rxd6 may be the losing move.|
|May-14-06|| ||hayton3: The drawing line is 36.f3 which stops the d-pawn advance and consequent king cetralisation which won Kamsky the game.|
|May-14-06|| ||Ulhumbrus: <hayton3: The drawing line is 36.f3 which stops the d-pawn advance and consequent king cetralisation which won Kamsky the game.> It may be that Anand avoided several opportunities to draw in an attempt to win, and that he finally went too far with 53 Rxd6 instead of playing 53 Rf3. Perhaps he miscalculated the consequences of 53 Rxd6 somewhere.|
|May-14-06|| ||hayton3: <Ulhumbrus> I would go further and venture that his frame of mind beguiled him as to the true nature of the position. It's quite likely that this loss comes down to attitude rather than endgame technique or calculation.|
|May-14-06|| ||monad: <hayton3: I would go further and venture that his frame of mind beguiled him as to the true nature of the position. It's quite likely that this loss comes down to attitude rather than endgame technique or calculation.>|
Well put! I like it. Praise goes to those who invited Kamsky. Maybe the others still saw him as a has been/never was, whereas he turns out to be unexpectedly dangerous.
I admire Kamsky not only for de-nerding himself so successfully, but also acquiring a separate career and then come back to the game.
|May-14-06|| ||hayton3: <I admire Kamsky not only for de-nerding himself so successfully, but also acquiring a separate career and then come back to the game.> Interesting - perhaps locking oneself away in an ivory tower of chess analysis is not such a good thing...|
|May-14-06|| ||Open Defence: <perhaps locking oneself away in an ivory tower of chess analysis is not such a good thing> well if it heightens one's feelings of paranoia ..probably not .. but with some chess players some of their "qualifications" are questionable ... don't know if this is the case with Kamsky though ..|
|May-14-06|| ||CapablancaFan: Here's a collection of nothing but rook-pawn endgames from Capablanca. This was Capa's bread and butter to have these sort of endings.Game Collection: José Capablanca's Rook Endings Unlike Anand, Capa knew how to conduct these.|
|May-14-06|| ||you vs yourself: Spielmann vs Capablanca, 1925 Capablanca vs Fine, 1938|
<CapablancaFan> Capablanca is not an endgame God; he makes mistakes like any human. For example, in the link you gave there are two games, knightpawn highlights them too, where it shows: In the first game, Capa got lucky that his opponent missed a win. He escaped with a draw. In the second game, Capa himself missed a win. If you also notice, most of those endgames are against no-name players.
True, Capa was better at endgames than most players in his day. But it's not like he plays them perfectly. He messed up two rook endgames in the link you gave.
|May-14-06|| ||keypusher: Since you have already kibitzed on Capablanca vs Menchik, 1929 , <capablancafan>, you should know better than to say <Unlike Anand, Capa knew how to conduct these [R+P endings]>.|
|May-15-06|| ||FHBradley: <Keypusher> In fact, it wasn't an article by Aljechin, but his book on the 1927 tournament in New York, where he analysed Capablanca's strengths and weaknesses in some detail; some discussion, together with links to the relevant games, is found elsewhere in chessgames.com:|
Alekhine vs Capablanca, 1924
|May-15-06|| ||keypusher: Thanks, <FHBradley>.|
|May-15-06|| ||euripides: <monad> Unless thereis a mistake in the game score, white played 42 Kg2 rather than 42 Ke3 so the position you give didn't arise. Marin on chessbase agrees that Ke3 would lose.|
|May-15-06|| ||CapablancaFan: Best pawn and rook endgame ever played...hands down! Capablanca vs Tartakower, 1924|
|May-15-06|| ||square dance: i think rubenstein is considered the best R+P endgame player ever.|
|May-15-06|| ||CapablancaFan: Rubinstein was an excellent player and endgame master for sure. I just think Capa's endgame fundamentals and logic was just simply superior in his day.|
|May-15-06|| ||chancho: This is the famous endgame that the masters who were present called witchcraft. Rubinstein found a way to win a Rook endgame that was seen as drawn.|
H K Mattison vs Rubinstein, 1929
|May-20-06|| ||alexandrovm: very nice endgame problem, for me.|
|Jul-19-06|| ||notyetagm: From GM Karsten Mueller:
Precise to the end. 56...Kc4? spoils it: 57.Kg4 Kxc3 58.Kxf4 Kb4 59.Ke3 Kxa4 60.Kd2 Kb3 61.Kc1=.
56...a5? 57.Kg2! (57.Kg4?? Ke4–+) 57...Ke4 58.Kf2=.
57.Kg2 Ke3 0-1
White resigned because of 58.Kf1 Kd3 59.Kf2 Kxc3 60.Kf3 Kb4 61.Kxf4 Kxa4 62.Ke3 Kb3 63.Kd2 Kb2–+.>
The <DRIVING-OFF> manoeuvre 56 ... ♔e4!! 57 ♔g2 ♔e3 58 ♔f1 increases the number of tempi that the White king needs to capture the Black f-pawn from two to three but leaves the number of tempi that the Black king needs to capture the White c-pawn at two.
The difference of one tempo decides this pawn endgame. <In both the winning and drawing lines given above the Black king is on b3 and it is White to move.> In the 56 ... ♔c4? variation the White king is on d2 and so ♔d2-c1 draws. But in the 56 ... ♔e4!! variation the White king is only as far as the e3-square and Black wins by after ♔e3-d2 ♔b3-b2.
Great endgame lesson by Kamsky.
|Jul-19-06|| ||sheaf: <CapablancaFan: ..... Unlike Anand, Capa knew how to conduct these.>
|Mar-14-08|| ||SetNoEscapeOn: <square dance>
To dig up an old discussion: Silman agrees in his book that Rubenstein was the best rook and pawn endgame player of all time. He is listed with Capablanca, Lasker, Smyslov, and Fischer as the best endgame players of all time overall.
|Aug-15-17|| ||Toribio3: At this point in time, Kamsky is a monster in a rook and pawn endgame!|
< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 9 OF 9 ·