08 Sep 12
Originally posted by Paul Leggettinteresting position...I have no clue. I assume we are just trying to draw here, or is there a resource?
I found this position while studying. White to move- what should he do?
[fen]8/3bN3/1k1p4/1P4p1/5p1p/5P1P/1R3KP1/3r4 w - - 0 75[/fen]
ML= weak at endgames.😳
08 Sep 12
Originally posted by Paul Leggett1.Ke2 attacking the rook seems the most logical move.
I found this position while studying. White to move- what should he do?
[fen]8/3bN3/1k1p4/1P4p1/5p1p/5P1P/1R3KP1/3r4 w - - 0 75[/fen]
For if,
1....Rg1 Then
2.Kf2 attacks the rook again.
2...Rd1
3.Ke2 couuld lead to a 3-repeat draw.
On any other move on the first rank allows
2.Nd5+ Then Black must move his king.
2,,,,Kb7 or Kc5 allows the advance of White's pawn.
3.b6
The biggest problem for white comes with
2....Rd4 I havwn decided if trading the N + P for B will draw or lose by
3.Nc6 and I' getting to sleepy to think about it.
08 Sep 12
1 edit
The problem for White is not that Black is going to win the b-pawn, his main concern is that Black will be threatening mate after that and White will have to give up the exchange to prevent it. This means that White can't go for the obvious plan of trying to win Black's g-pawn with his knight.
So, perhaps 1. Nc6 Bxc6 2.bxc6 Kxc6 which I guess must be a drawn ending?
Originally posted by Fat LadyTrying to win Black's g-pawn is not an obvious plan to me. It's a stupid plan.
The problem for White is not that Black is going to win the b-pawn, his main concern is that Black will be threatening mate after that and White will have to give up the exchange to prevent it. This means that White can't go for the obvious plan of trying to win Black's g-pawn with his knight.
So, perhaps 1. Nc6 Bxc6 2.bxc6 Kxc6 which I guess must be a drawn ending?
08 Sep 12
Originally posted by Fat LadySo your decision is that 1. Nc6 Bxc6 2.bxc6 Kxc6 is a draw. Therefore,
The problem for White is not that Black is going to win the b-pawn, his main concern is that Black will be threatening mate after that and White will have to give up the exchange to prevent it. This means that White can't go for the obvious plan of trying to win Black's g-pawn with his knight.
So, perhaps 1. Nc6 Bxc6 2.bxc6 Kxc6 which I guess must be a drawn ending?
1. Ke2 Rd4 2. Nc6 Bxc6 3. bxc6 Kxc6 must also be a draw.
So is the problem solved?
09 Sep 12
Originally posted by Paul LeggettHi all,
I found this position while studying. White to move- what should he do?
[fen]8/3bN3/1k1p4/1P4p1/5p1p/5P1P/1R3KP1/3r4 w - - 0 75[/fen]
I just wanted to let everyone know that I am not trying to be coy, and that I really want to get people's opinions on this. I don't want to influence anyone, so that's why I haven't said any more.
I plan to add the background after the weekend, to give the rest of our weekend warrior colleagues a chance to weigh in. Thanks to everyone who has commented so far!
Paul
10 Sep 12
2 edits
Here is the game (Suess-Keres Dortmund 1973) that led to the position I posted, which is IM Tim Taylor's analysis of how the game would have continued and which led to the resignation.
White resigned in the final position in the game, and the position I posted is from Taylor's line below.
IM Tim Taylor gives the following moves 73. Rb2 Bc8 74. Ne7 Bd7 and writes "...and the b-pawn goes, while white has absolutely no counterplay."
I would most certainly prefer to be black, but the position did not strike me as one that I would resign, based only on the position itself.
My guess is that Suess resigned because he was playing Keres!
I was curious to know what others thought of the position, and I did not want to bias anyone by providing anything but the position itself.
10 Sep 12
2 edits
Originally posted by RJHindsAside from the fact that the statement "It's a stupid plan" is a rude one, it is also vacuous.
Trying to win Black's g-pawn is not an obvious plan to me. It's a stupid plan.
If you question a thought or line of analysis, you should explain why with commentary or moves.
In positions such as this, I think it is valuable to look at almost every possibility we can reasonably consider.
Every brilliant queen sacrifice begins with a move that seems superficially implausible, so an open mind is a valuable commodity.
Originally posted by Paul LeggettWell, we have shown that IM Tim Taylors analysis is wrong and that white does have good counterplay. White has threats of countinual checks that will result in a draw as has been indicated by two of us.
Here is the game (Suess-Keres Dortmund 1973) that led to the position I posted, which is IM Tim Taylor's analysis of how the game would have continued and which led to the resignation.
[pgn][Event "FRG-ch int"]
[Site "Dortmund"]
[Date "1973.??.??"]
[Round "3"]
[White "Suess, Alois"]
[Black "Keres, Paul"]
[Result "0-1"]
[ECO "C73"]
[BlackElo " bias anyone by providing anything but the position itself.
10 Sep 12
Originally posted by Paul LeggettWhite trying to win Black's g-pawn is obviously not a good starting plan at the beginning of the position given. That would take too long. So the obvious plan is to defend white's b-pawn that is under attack. We have shown that attacking Black's rook is the most obvious plan then interposing the knight attacking the rook again. Now if Black wishes to win the pawn, he will have to exchange his bishop for the knight, but then the positon can be drawn with White moving his rook to a2 threating to harass the Black king. Good counterplay, I would say and if carefully played it should lead to a draw as we have already determined.
Aside from the fact that the statement "It's a stupid plan" is a rude one, it is also vacuous.
If you question a thought or line of analysis, you should explain why with commentary or moves.
In positions such as this, I think it is valuable to look at almost every possibility we can reasonably consider.
Every brilliant queen sacrifice begins with a move that seems superficially implausible, so an open mind is a valuable commodity.