Page 1 of 1
R and B v R
Posted: Sun Apr 07, 2013 3:50 pm
by John Moore
Yet another IM shows that he has no idea how to defend this and he had 10 minutes so he wasn't short of time. Galyas v Medvegy in the Budesliga today - someone brighter than me will do a link.
Re: R and B v R
Posted: Sun Apr 07, 2013 4:06 pm
by Andrew Bak
John Moore wrote:Yet another IM shows that he has no idea how to defend this and he had 10 minutes so he wasn't short of time. Galyas v Medvegy in the Budesliga today - someone brighter than me will do a link.
The position until 82...Bc5 is apparently drawn, White had to find 83.Rh4 or 83.Rh1.
Re: R and B v R
Posted: Sun Apr 07, 2013 4:07 pm
by Roger de Coverly
John Moore wrote:Yet another IM shows that he has no idea how to defend this and he had 10 minutes so he wasn't short of time. Galyas v Medvegy in the Budesliga today
http://bundesliga.liveschach.net/?lang=en and click on the match Trier - Eppingen
The game has auto annotations by Houdini, using a tablebase presumably. On move 83 Rh5+ is shown as a losing error, with 83. Rh1 indicated as level. I'm not sure I would know why. Before that Houdini makes no claim of an advantage.
Re: R and B v R
Posted: Sun Apr 07, 2013 4:11 pm
by John Moore
I hesitate to say it's obvious. Roger
Re: R and B v R
Posted: Sun Apr 07, 2013 5:40 pm
by Jonathan Bryant
John Moore wrote:Yet another IM shows that he has no idea how to defend this and he had 10 minutes so he wasn't short of time. Galyas v Medvegy in the Budesliga today ....
Thanks for the tip-off - and thanks to Andrew for uploading the game.
I think 'no idea' and 'wasn't short of time' is a bit harsh. 10 minutes doesn't strike me as a huge amount of time to play 50 moves. Are there increments in the Bundesliga? That would make a difference of course. If not, how would he ever claim a draw?
Also, to my not especially expert eye, it looks like White's trying to get a Cochrane position but never quite making it. E.g. if it was his move before Black played 82 ... Rb2+ he could play 82 Rh5+ Be5, 83 Rg5 and everything's tickety boo.
I'm guessing he played 83 Rh5+ because it looks like he's getting something like a cochrane but Black is one file nearer.
A while back Nigel Short wrote an article about a 2600 GM messing up a Vancura draw in which he says the guy probably knew what he was supposed to be aiming for but not well enough to be able to deliver when the pressure was on. Perhaps something like that is going on here?
That said, I agree that the starting position is far from the least favourable you could imagine for White and I'm sure IMs could do more difficult stuff than this in ten minutes.
(more in a bit)
Re: R and B v R
Posted: Sun Apr 07, 2013 6:09 pm
by Jonathan Bryant
Andrew Bak wrote:
The position until 82...Bc5 is apparently drawn, White had to find 83.Rh4 or 83.Rh1.
The trouble with Tablebase (massively useful training tool though it is) is that not all draws are created equal. I remember Short in the article I mentioned above saying something like
"this doesn't lose but it's a step in the wrong direction".
I dare say it's still a theoretical draw until move 82 but if you haven't got tablebase installed in your head that doesn't mean so much for a human. The real problem, it seems to me, is that White never managed to effectively cut off the Black king.
So, right at the start, why not
72 Rd5 instead, cutting off on the d-file? Then perhaps something like
72 ... Ke3, 73 Rd8 Rc7+, 74 Kb5 Ke4, 75 Rd1 Be3, 76 Rd8 Bd4, 77 Rg8 Kd5, 78 Rg5+ Be5, 79 Rh5 and there's your Cochrane
If you are going to go to d5 with the king why not follow up with 73 Ke6 trying to cut off on the 5th rank?
Similarly, in the game why not
77 Rg8 intending (or at least hoping for)
... Rc7+, 78 Kb5 Kd5, 79 Rg5? Or if
Disclaimer:
(a) i stand to be corrected
(b)
72 Rd5 and
77 Rg8 are what came to mind when I first played through the game. I had the advantage of not having just been playing chess for several hours and the only pressure on me was choosing between a Custard tart and chocolate chip cookie to go with my tea. Since then I've been able to come home and work out a couple of specific lines by shoving the pieces around.
Re: R and B v R
Posted: Sun Apr 07, 2013 6:11 pm
by Richard Bates
John Moore wrote:Yet another IM shows ...
Well we can't know everything...!
Re: R and B v R
Posted: Sun Apr 07, 2013 8:02 pm
by Jonathan Bryant
Richard Bates wrote:
Well we can't know everything...!
The reason I really like stories like these - aside from the schadenfreude, I mean - is that what you say is obviously true. And if it's true for folk rated 50 ECF higher than me then it must be even more true for those rated 20-30 ECF above me. People against whom I'd be very happy to get a result, that is.
It gives me hope.
Re: R and B v R
Posted: Sun Apr 07, 2013 8:13 pm
by Simon Ansell
Some IMs know how to
draw this endgame (more by luck than judgement)
Re: R and B v R
Posted: Sun Apr 07, 2013 8:22 pm
by Roger de Coverly
Simon Ansell wrote:Some IMs know how to draw this endgame (more by luck than judgement)
The stalemate trick of putting the Rook en prise to the Bishop is always the spectacular way to defend. Reaching that position in the first place could be the problem.
Re: R and B v R
Posted: Sun Apr 07, 2013 8:24 pm
by Simon Ansell
Roger de Coverly wrote:Simon Ansell wrote:Some IMs know how to draw this endgame (more by luck than judgement)
The stalemate trick of putting the Rook en prise to the Bishop is always the spectacular way to defend. Reaching that position in the first place could be the problem.
To be honest that's the only feature of the position I am/was aware of (hence more luck than judgement)! Vs. Keith I would estimate my chances of holding at no more than 5%
Edit: Maybe I'm not giving myself enough credit,
according to Wikipedia, "Tony Kosten has seen the endgame many times in master games, with the stronger side almost always winning (Kosten 1987:11)".
Re: R and B v R
Posted: Sun Apr 07, 2013 9:21 pm
by JustinHorton
I never knew Tony Kosten's midle name was Cornelis.