39th Olympiad Khanty-Mansiysk 2010 (the chess)

[Jon D'Souza-Eva]

Gawain must be winning now?

He is after 50. Nf2!

Mind you, if it ends up as Q vs R+2, is that a win for the queen?

[Phil Neatherway]

50. Nf2 looks cunning.

[Matthew Turner]

Yep, Nf2 was a great move. I think Gawain should be able to go ahead and win from here

[Jonathan Rogers]

But 2-2 in the match looks very likely. Gawain must be close to winning, if not already so?

As for the ladies, the remaining two positions are looking up (it's not so easy for Lauterbach's opponent to strengthen her position), although of course there's still plenty to play for.

55...Na4 56.c5! will be exercising the minds of the board four players, though I am sure Black still holds.

[Ian Kingston]

The main pairing list is now showing Rublevsky 1-0 Howell. Assuming Jones wins, 2-2 is a pretty decent result.

[Eoin Devane]

Sam Collins seems to be under a bit of pressure. Hopefully he can hold it to keep the norm chances alive.

Sam has lost.

[Paul Runnacles]

I think Gawain should not have swapped pieces - this may not be winnable now

[Roger de Coverly]

I think Gawain should not have swapped pieces - this may not be winnable now

I've checked against http://www.shredderchess.com/online-che ... abase.html

It's certainly winnable and Gawain seems to be following the recommended quickest plan.

[Paul Runnacles]

phew!

[Matthew Turner]

I am very surprised that Gawain traded minor pieces. I hope Roger has got it right.

[Maxim Devereaux]

It is a win according to the tablebases, yes. But it's far from trivial. The basics of the play seem to be to stalemate black in the corner to force him to disrupt his R+Ps formation - if he advances them to queen you eventually get to bring your king close enough. But Qb1 wasn't quickest by White - attempting to stalemate Black on a1 was.

However, although the tablebases give a win in 40 moves after that, at least we don't have to be worried about 50 move rule, since it seems likely Black will be forced to move pawns long before that.

EDIT: it's horrible to try and defend this with no time though, so I predict Gawain will win quickly enough.

[Alex Holowczak]

I think Gawain should not have swapped pieces - this may not be winnable now

I've checked against http://www.shredderchess.com/online-che ... abase.html

It's certainly winnable and Gawain seems to be following the recommended quickest plan.

That website's awesome! If I ever get into a 6 piece or fewer winning-but-tricky endgame, no one in the Birmingham League will ever have adjourned so fast!

[Ian Kingston]

I am very surprised that Gawain traded minor pieces. I hope Roger has got it right.

I think Jones has found the right plan. At some point Black will have to block a check with the rook to avoid being forked. Then the pawns fall and it's 50 moves to win KQ vs. KR.

[Maxim Devereaux]

I've not seen it on the Shredder site before, but there's an identical one on a site in Germany, for which the link has been for some years on the BCM links page: http://www.k4it.de/index.php?topic=egtb&lang=en

[Keith Arkell]

To be perfectly honest, it seems to me that you're making the same mistake that is so often made by football pundits:
1) You look at the peak performance results (England-Germany 5-1 in 2001, England-Argentina 1-0 in WC 2002 for instance) and take this as the norm for the performance to be expected every single time the players sit down at the board (if you pardon me mixing the sports here). 2) In the process, poor or middling results are completely disregarded (such as 0-0 v Andorra at HT, the team booed off the pitch a few years ago, 1-1 v Algeria in WC 2010) while at the same time 3) failing to take into account the strength of the opposition (such as Germany in this year's World Cup - not only did they slaughter England, incorrectly disallowed Lampard goal notwithstanding, they clobbered Argentina right and proper as well).

Do you always play chess at your peak performance standard? I know for sure I don't. We all have good days and bad, as well strengths and weaknesses, and that includes players at the very top of the game.

Very well said Ola.
I'm not sure that we were ever the second strongest nation in the
world at chess.If I remember correctly phenominally good performances
from Nunn and possibly Chandler(?) enabled us to finish second which
is slightly diferent.Even if there was one fleeting moment when we
were ranked 2 in the world,look how much tougher it is today! You only
had to play once against the whole of the soviet union.Now there are 5
Russian teams,and lots of other super strong teams representing each
of the former USSR states.On top of that there are many ex Soviets on
the top boards of Western teams.Finally,there has been a kind of
worldwide chess explosion.Look for example at France,China,Vietnam and
so on...

I don't mean any disrespect to our best players from earlier
generations,and indeed some of them achieved impressively high world
rankings,but equally I don't think that it is fair to today's team to
suggest that standards at the top of English chess have fallen
away,and that somehow we are a shadow of our former selves.

I personally believe that the current England team is our strongest
ever.I know it's difficult to compare strengths across generations,but
even excluding the continual rise in standards worldwide,I believe
that the current team would not have had to play above themselves to
come second if it were transported back to the days when there was
just one Soviet team,and France(etc etc etc) were so much weaker.