at the mercy of the arbiter

[Justin Hadi]

K+2Ns v P is much harder, of course. Once in the mid-1990s I reached a dreadful position in a game in a weekender against a girl of about 14 and was on the brink of a most embarrassing defeat. I then spotted a way to reach an endgame where I had the pawn against the two knights. Rather smugly (and I confess, sexistly, if there is such an adverb), I thought to myself that this young girl was unlikely to have the necessary technique to win against my c.190 graded self in this difficult endgame, particularly since she only had a few minutes left of the 15-minute quickplay finish to do it. After checking the scoresheet to make sure her surname was not "Polgar", I decided to take a chance on it. But it turned out that I had seriously underestimated my opponent's skill. The young girl manoeuvred me to the brink of defeat before unluckily running out of time to finish it off. Another ten or twenty seconds and I would have been a dead man. At the end she seemed quite cross with herself for failing to win (although she was very polite to me). After this chastening experience I remember thinking "this girl is going to be a very good player". I was right. She's Jovanka Houska.

Did you win on time or did she take the pawn?

[John Saunders]

I think we just agreed a draw.

[James Plaskett]

Along with Toplaov this other GM emigré to Spain had 2 Knights against a Pawn TWICE. Once vs Suba in 1989 at the Barnsleydale Country Club Masters and once in a rapid event in Javea last September.
I drew last year, through a combination of time running out and not knowing my arse from my elbow.
The Suba game, incredibly, was a win for HIM, with the white pawn on h6, as my flag fell and arbiter David Eustace awarded him the game despite my having just had a draw offer turned down. ONE and then a 2nd appeals committee upheld the ruling.
I watched the post mortem of Korchnoi-Nunn from London 1980 where, in a critical line, Korchnoi could have reached this ending. He admitted that, like Nunn, he did not know whether or not it was winning. "Larsen maybe know," observed a spectating Quinteros.
Michael Stean said that poor endgame technique is like playing tennis without a backhand.
But Nunn, I think more accurately, noted that endings are interesting but they do not happen all that often.
Backhand shots at tennis are more common than 2 Knights Versus a Pawn.
In 1986 a critical line of a game between Karpov and Korchnoi resulted in the ending of Q vs R and Knight´s pawn on the 5th, with the rook behind the pawn and both Kings near.
Neither of them knew the correct result. (It is drawn.)
I beat Ravikumar with B+N vs K at the 1989 Lloyds Bank Masters and drew Q vs Rook against Hebden at Oviedo 1993, when I let him pin my Queen. My apprehension about reaching that pawnless ending was probably what led me to draw a Rook ending 2 pawns up against Speelman in 1997.
And what about the ending of Rook vs 2 Knights and a Bishop?
Or the chances of it happening at GM level on the same day? http://james-plasketts-coincidence-diar ... unter.html
And, without checking on it: what is the correct assessment of the ending of Q vs N+B (?)

www.jamesplaskett.com/

[Matt Mackenzie]

And, without checking on it: what is the correct assessment of the ending of Q vs N+B (?)

I always thought it was - usually - a win for the Q? Or have computers (as with some other endings) changed this??

[Ian Kingston]

And, without checking on it: what is the correct assessment of the ending of Q vs N+B (?)

I always thought it was - usually - a win for the Q? Or have computers (as with some other endings) changed this??

Nunn, in Secrets of Pawnless Endings, says it's normally a win for the Q. There is a fortress which draws if the defender can reach it:

4K1k1/6b1/8/4n2Q/8/8/8/8 w - - 0 0

[Nick Burrows]

I came to this thread a little late, but enjoyed reading through the debate about the relative strength of old masters versus modern masters. In the new version of 'My System', Aagaard ends the book with the following question - Were the strongest players of Nimzowitch's time equal to our own?

It is a common view among chess critics (John Watson is one of them) that chess masters of the past did not possess the strength of today's masters, and that this is not only a question of acquiring opening theory, but also a question of chess having changed dramatically. Though this sounds logical we should also take into account that the opposing view has strong advocates:-
" When I review the games of the old masters, I realise that they were by no means weaker than contemporary players; maybe even stronger! I am talking about middle game and end game play, naturally. If a chess genius like Alekhine was brought into our time and given access to modern theory, he would be able to compete at the highest level. " - World No.93 GM Alexander Riazantsev on Chesscafe.com 2006.
When you look at Nimzowitch's technical performances in the games of 'My System' I tend to agree with Riazantsev. But when it comes to complex positional decisions I simply cannot judge. The only conclusion I can make is that Nimzowitsch was a stronger player than me.

Followed by a quote from Artur Yusupov in 2006 -

I am sure that Steinitz would become world champion if he was born in our time. I analysed a lot of his games and can honestly say that noone contributed as much to chess as he did