Amazing how sparce coverage is on KRR v KRR endings compared to KR v KR (and of course pawns)....just a side note.>

Capablanca discusses at least three KRR vs KRR endings, examples 57, 60, and 61, in his <Chess Fundamentals>

http://www.gutenberg.org/files/3387...

Capablanca vs Kupchik, 1913

Capablanca vs A Kreymborg, 1910

Capablanca vs Janowski, 1913

Capablanca writes in the preface to <Chess Fundamentals> <The reader may therefore go over the contents of the book with the assurance that there is in it everything he needs, and that there is nothing to be added and nothing to be changed.>

Fusilli, the last question asked of the players at the press conference was whether they do yoga. Then Carlsen was asked if he would try a Bird of Paradise--I didn't quite follow his answer, but neither did I follow the question.

Turns out Anand didn't either. As they were leaving the table some open mike caught Anand asking Carlsen, Bird of Paradise? What is that, some kind of cocktail?

:)

26.Bg4 f5
27.Bf3 with the idea of getting white Bishop to d5 etc.

Of course if you could tweak them so it knows one player needs a win and the other is happy to draw.

Also the player seeking the win may be at +0.50+ but is willing to accept -0.50 just so long as the position is complicated enough to give his opponent a tough series of only moves to find.

This is what Anand is and was looking for. When the 'thing' can come up with sugestions that fit this criteria, then you are talking about a worhtwhile tool.

But if the lads want to enter the moves into a box and see what it says. Who am I say to say it will not make them a better player. I got good without one. But that does not mean to say today a beginner won't get good using one.

Here I'd say no because the lad will never be able to spot and look for human errors. In OTB human play the two trick is King.

These things don't leave two move tricks on unless you dumb them down to the level of a soap dish and beating them at that level soon becomes boring and a waste of time.

Nor will our lad get use to playing a farting, belching, candy munching, table knocking, coughing, smelly human, this is an acquired skill in itself.

Hi jphamlore,

I'm talking about endgame books in general. Double Rooks endings tend ro be ignored. The best plan appears to be if you cannot get blind swine - chop a Rook and go into a single Rook ending. :)

Some end game books don't even mention them at all. Apparently this includes Dvoretsky's Endgame Manual. I don't have it (hell will freeze over first before I buy another endgame book - I have two, dont need another.) so I cannot confirm.

You will often find a load of end game configurations one may encounter once every 1,000 games (totally useless to the average club player.) but nothing on Double Rook endings which are fairly frequent.

Some end game books don't even mention them at all. Apparently this includes Dvoretsky's Endgame Manual. I don't have it (hell will freeze over first before I buy another endgame book - I have two, dont need another.) so I cannot confirm.>

The reason for this omission in Dvoretsky's Endgame Manual is simple, as explained in the From the Author (First Edition) section:

<Dvoretsky: I also prepared a series of lectures on the general principles of endgame play. By the way, the main ideas of that series became (with my permission) the basis of the popular book Endgame Strategy by Mikhail Shereshevsky (I recommend that book to my readers).>

Thus the material from Dvoretsky's lectures on endgames where both sides have two or more pieces was deliberately left to Shereshevsky's book.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Udz...

As I said I don't have the book and very rarely/never read an intro. In Rampant Chess I told the reader to skip this bit and get on with the games.

"So everything does lead back to Capablanca's Chess Fundamentals...."

I'm thinking of positions where the +0.50 player has to play the only moves to maintain his +.

It is how many theoretically won games are lost. The winning position becomes too difficult to maintain, the human player has to steer the game through a very narrow path to get the win.

If it's complicated with pitfalls all over the board then anything can happen.

"Nothing is more difficult than winning a won game."

According to Golombek White prevails in the Gruenfeld defence if he can conquer the central point d5.

This suggests making White's KB contribute towards an attack upon d5 by Bc4 instead of Be2 eg 8 Qb3 c5 9 d5 e6 10 Bg5

20. Bb5, more or less forcing the exchage sac 20.. Bd5 was a real test to Carlsen's 19.. Bd4! (Anand saw it of course and mentioned it in the press conference but went for 20. Ne4).

With 23. Rd2 instead of 23.a3 with 24.Rfe1, or even 23.Rfe1 immediately. Anand was again going for the passive drawish option, although he obviously saw the other active options (and mentioned them in the press conference).

And 25. Rc1 was another passive move from Anand, aiming for a draw, instead of the more active 25. Rb1 move, although here, the winning chances were already low.

Even 19. d6 instead of Anand's 19.Ng5 would have been more active and challenging than trading more pieces with Ng5 (especially when Anand was so afraid of black's exchange sac options..).

I am not sure he was afraid at all. Playing d6!? earlier was not clear, and by no means would have guaranteed a better position. yeah, just because evals said 0.9 and Anand played a move that showed 0.5 does not mean that Anand was afraid, he knew better. If anything, he may have missed that ..Qf6 ! was very strong, and he might have missed some chance to apply pressure later in the game, with Rfe1 instead of the played Rd2?!. <Being lead by fear is obviously not the way for Anand to come back with a win.>

Lol, Anand may have just made the best moves in the game, instead of being naive and try to play for a win in a well analysed position by the opposition. I would not call that lead by fear.

<Anand just doesn't seem to have inside him what it takes to make a comeback>