Only Chess
29 Dec 05
30 Dec 05
Originally posted by DogbyteGood book. I had a copy, but gave it away as a prize in a tournament. I think about replacing it every time I see it in a bookstore, even though I have Dvoretsky's Endgame Manual, Muller and Lamprecht's Fundamental Chess Endings, Reuben Fine's Basic Chess Endings, and several other endgame texts.
im reading pandolfini's endgame course at the moment, by Bruce Pandolfini. i havent finished it yet, but im enjoying it so far. got in on amazon for a few dollars. my endgame needs sharpening as well.
30 Dec 05
1 edit
Originally posted by prosoccer1.g4 draws. It is the wrong solution. Subtract five points for suggesting it.
Hey, wulebgr, I don't know if anyone else has said this, but your example with the pawns end game isn't mate, due to en passent.
White to move and win does not mean white to move and checkmate. It took me seven moves to checkmate Fritz from this position, and Fritz's every move was forced.
30 Dec 05
Originally posted by WulebgrWhat are you talking about? Win does mean that you are victorious, not a draw which is a tie (not a win). Win has always meant you being victorious while your opponent loses.
1.g4 draws. It is the wrong solution. Subtract five points for suggesting it.
White to move and win does not mean white to move and checkmate. It took me seven moves to checkmate Fritz from this position, and Fritz's every move was forced.
30 Dec 05
Originally posted by prosoccerHe means that white to play and win, doesn't mean that there has to be a forseeable checkmate. You must just secure enough material to be assured of the win.
What are you talking about? Win does mean that you are victorious, not a draw which is a tie (not a win). Win has always meant you being victorious while your opponent loses.
However, this puzzle does lead to checkmate.
30 Dec 05
1 edit
Originally posted by prosoccerThat's correct.
What are you talking about? Win does mean that you are victorious, not a draw which is a tie (not a win). Win has always meant you being victorious while your opponent loses.
1.g4 is a mistake because it draws.
The correct move initiates a sequence that leads to certain victory: "white to move and win."
You are looking for a mate in one, which does not exist in the present position. Nor would one expect to find a mate in one in a set of pawn endgame problems. Indeed, the problem I presented in a rare gem because the solution ends in checkmate in a few moves, and does not require a pawn's promotion.
White to move and win
The solution:
1.b5! leaves black one legal move. 1...h3. Now, 2.g4+ Kh4 (again the only legal move) 3.b3 h5 (the only legal move) 4.g5!! (I missed this move on the first try) 4...fxg5 (only legal move) 5.b4 g4 (only legal move) 6.Kf4 g3 (only legal move) 7.hxg3#
A beautiful problem, composed by M. Lewitt (1896). #43 in the Finali di Pedone I set to which I provided a link above.
30 Dec 05
1 edit
Originally posted by prosocceronly if you are unfamiliar with chess jargon
But there is a difference between saying 'White to move and win', and 'White to move and win somewhere down the line. To move and win gives the false pretense of an immediate win.
I have never seen any chess book state, "White to move and win somewhere down the line."
Almost universal in chess books, however, is a statement about who is on move ( "white to move" ) and the result sought ( "win" ). A few texts, such as Polgar's Chess Training in 5334 Positions tell you mate in x moves. On the other hand, Polgar's Chess Endgames cuts it to a minimum: "1? =" means white to move and draw, while "1...? -+" means black to move and win. None of the 4560 positions in that tome are mate in one, but a small number of solutions list only one move.
So, after the pattern of Polgar, here's another of my favorites from Finali di Pedone I
1.? +-
31 Dec 05
The black king can't move without letting a pawn queen, if white's king were on d6 then black's lost after c7 as long as black can't queen before the a pawn gets to a7. So you head towards the black pawns, since black can't avoid pawn moves you get something like: 1. Ke2 f5 2. Ke3 g5 3. Kd4 g4 4. Kd5 g3 5. Kd6 g2 6. c7+ Kc8 (Ka7 also loses) 7. a7 g1=Q 8. a8=Q#, black can try to run with a pawn 1. Ke2 h5 2. Kf3 h4 3. Kf4 but either loses the h-pawn, and then the other two, or pushes one of the others in which case white's got the needed tempo.
31 Dec 05
Originally posted by DeepThoughtYes. But a king against three connected passed pawns is not child's play. According to The Oxford Companion to Chess, analysis of the three pawns problem was first published by Pietro Carrera in 1617, but was not solved until Jozsef Szen did so in 1836.
The black king can't move without letting a pawn queen, if white's king were on d6 then black's lost after c7 as long as black can't queen before the a pawn gets to a7. So you head towards the black pawns, since black can't avoid pawn moves you get something like: 1. Ke2 f5 2. Ke3 g5 3. Kd4 g4 4. Kd5 g3 5. Kd6 g2 6. c7+ Kc8 (Ka7 also loses) 7. a7 g1=Q 8 ...[text shortened]... hen the other two, or pushes one of the others in which case white's got the needed tempo.
31 Dec 05
Originally posted by WulebgrIt's not trivial, in the above problem white wants to be careful to avoid 1. Ke2 g5 2. Kf3 f5 when he can't get to d6 quickly enough as e4 is closed off, and then black wins.
Yes. But a king against three connected passed pawns is not child's play. According to The Oxford Companion to Chess, analysis of the three pawns problem was first published by Pietro Carrera in 1617, but was not solved until Jozsef Szen did so in 1836.
31 Dec 05
Originally posted by DeepThoughtYep. I lost to Fritz a half dozen times before finding my way. At least some of the HS players that I coach picked it up quicker.
It's not trivial, in the above problem white wants to be careful to avoid 1. Ke2 g5 2. Kf3 f5 when he can't get to d6 quickly enough as e4 is closed off, and then black wins.
31 Dec 05
Originally posted by prosoccerThis is just silly. The move gives mate in one. If it were mate in 5 as long as it's forced) it's white to move and win. Heck, were it white to move and win a minor piece (assuming material and positional equity) it's essentially white to move and win.
But there is a difference between saying 'White to move and win', and 'White to move and win somewhere down the line. To move and win gives the false pretense of an immediate win.