Chess Masters: the Endgame

[Christopher Kreuzer]

I wonder if they will run out of chess-related puzzles if you end up with a second series? It should be possible to keep coming up with imaginative puzzles for a while yet.

PS. Serious gripe:

https://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/m ... iminator-2

The subtitles are not there for the 2nd Eliminator (they were there for the first one).

[David Shepherd]

Well at least this week it taught me that I can touch my rook change my mind and move my King.

[Christopher Kreuzer]

I watched the full verion of the eliminator;

Draw by 5 fold repetition, when there were numerous White queen checks on e5, I think.

I am not sure how many time a 3-fold repetition occurred, but it was brave and honest (IMO) for the producers to both show this happening in the Eliminator and limit their "intervention" to a screenshot of captions informing those watching the full game of the 3-fold position rule. I don't suppose we will ever know if Cai knew this rule or not.

(Yes, I know arbiters are meant to declare the game drawn after 5-fold repetition.)

[Roger de Coverly]

I think some of them failed to immediately realise that the solution must be one queen on each rank and one queen on each file which, to my mind, leads you to try separating the queens on adjacent files by knight's moves.

They don't actually have to be Knight moves, For example the skeleton of Qh1 and Qg7 works. It's the diagonals that have to be avoided and are less easy to check. I did wonder whether the solution isn't to do with chess , rather than theory of how to place 8x8. with symmetry that can become 8x4 provide the join doesn't kill the soltion.

[Andrew Zigmond]

Last week I was defending the program but this week I find myself slightly more ambivalent. As David Shepherd has noted above there was the blatant violation of the touch move rule. Ironically I referenced being on the board next to Anthony Mathurin at a 4NCL tournament and his exact claim was that his opponent had violated the rule (the arbiter had to take both players outside - I don't know how it was resolved).

I have to admit that the thing that is really grating is how these players are being billed as "Chess Masters" and I'm sure David Howell must be saying it through gritted teeth. Just so I'm not misunderstood - all the players in the competition have intuition and instinct, all would easily hold their own in the lower divisions of most leagues and with a bit of practice I suspect would develop into very capable club strength players. But "masters" they are not.

[Christopher Kreuzer]

I think some of them failed to immediately realise that the solution must be one queen on each rank and one queen on each file which, to my mind, leads you to try separating the queens on adjacent files by knight's moves.

They don't actually have to be Knight moves, For example the skeleton of Qh1 and Qg7 works. It's the diagonals that have to be avoided and are less easy to check. I did wonder whether the solution isn't to do with chess , rather than theory of how to place 8x8. with symmetry that can become 8x4 provide the join doesn't kill the soltion.

There are websites galore out there about the 8-queen problem.

The Wikipedia page shows as its main image the symmetrical solution that is in some ways easiest to remember (it can be thought of as two mirrored loops of knight-move separated queens, with the loops themselves forming a knight-move L-shape - once you have put the 6 'corner' queens on the board, the placement on the middle two columns is obvious):

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eight_queens_puzzle

Others may prefer to remember the 'staircasing' solution. There are 12 'fundamental' solutions to the main problem.

[Thomas Rendle]

What about the Pawn Race puzzle. I should know if this is a draw with best play. I think it is. Both kings end up having to shuffle around after the pawn moves run out, but maybe I am missing a forced zugzwang somewhere. It is a great pity that both of those 'games' ended with early blunders. I was hoping for a stalemate!

I'm pretty certain it should be decisive, from memory I think it's a win for White. Believe it or not Gary O'Grady is actually the expert in this endgame, and he used to take great amusement challenging the titled players (including some very strong GMs, possibly David Howell as well, certainly he beat me) at Bunratty, usually winning from either side of the board.

I would also think that Lula and Caitlin are stronger than Claire, based on what we've seen so far. However Claire has shown herself to be a bit more patient with the 'puzzles'.

I heard that Kel might be one of the stronger players in the next group, I guess we'll see.

[Christopher Kreuzer]

What about the Pawn Race puzzle. I should know if this is a draw with best play. I think it is. Both kings end up having to shuffle around after the pawn moves run out, but maybe I am missing a forced zugzwang somewhere. It is a great pity that both of those 'games' ended with early blunders. I was hoping for a stalemate!

I'm pretty certain it should be decisive, from memory I think it's a win for White. Believe it or not Gary O'Grady is actually the expert in this endgame, and he used to take great amusement challenging the titled players (including some very strong GMs, possibly David Howell as well, certainly he beat me) at Bunratty, usually winning from either side of the board.

I would also think that Lula and Caitlin are stronger than Claire, based on what we've seen so far. However Claire has shown herself to be a bit more patient with the 'puzzles'.

I heard that Kel might be one of the stronger players in the next group, I guess we'll see.

This is interesting, about Gary O'Grady, it now makes sense what Richard Bates said here:

viewtopic.php?t=2426&start=45#p48146

One thing you cannot question is the last time he lost, as everybody remembers their losses

I heard an unsubstantiated claim that Nick lost with K+fgh pawns vs K+abc pawns against Gary O'Grady at Hastings.

For context, the thread was a claim by Nick Pert for a record number of games without losing.

Obviously playing the 'K+fgh pawns vs K+abc pawns against Gary O'Grady' doesn't count, and this was a joke!

I have struggled to find any resources on the internet explaining any of the theory here.

I suspect I need to search for the starting position itself somehow.

[Thomas Rendle]

If played properly the endgame should be about Zugzwang. For example, it's a good idea to start from the end (as with most pawn endings) and work backwards. The following position is an obvious example of mutual Zugzwang:

8/8/PkP5/1P6/6p1/5pKp/8/8 w - - 0 1

[Roger de Coverly]

The following position is an obvious example of mutual Zugzwang:

8/8/PkP5/1P6/6p1/5pKp/8/8 w - - 0 1

I think that position is important. It shows that it may not be a serious disadvantage to move second.

[Thomas Rendle]

The following position is an obvious example of mutual Zugzwang:

8/8/PkP5/1P6/6p1/5pKp/8/8 w - - 0 1

I think that position is important. It shows that it may not be a serious disadvantage to move second.

I've checked with Stockfish and it's winning for White (starting with Ke2 or Ke1), it even claims #33 at a high enough depth.

[Thomas Rendle]

An example of the winning technique - the position from 10.Kg3 onwards I think it the sort of thing Gary had memorised.

[SetUp "1"] [FEN "4k3/5ppp/8/8/8/8/PPP5/3K4 w - - 0 1"] [PlyCount "37"] {[#]} 1. Ke2 Kd7 2. Kf3 Kc7 3. a4 Kb6 4. b4 h5 5. Kg3 g5 {Now only one move wins, the others all lose} 6. a5+ Ka6 7. c4 f6 (7... f5 8. c5 Kb5 9. Kg2 f4 ( 9... g4 10. Kg3) 10. Kf3 h4 11. Kg4) 8. c5 Kb5 9. Kf3 f5 10. Kg3 g4 11. Kf2 f4 12. Kg2 h4 13. Kg1 $1 f3 14. Kf2 h3 15. Kg3 Kc6 16. a6 Kc7 17. b5 Kc8 18. c6 Kb8 19. b6 *

[Andrew Zigmond]

I do think the format of a hybrid of actual games and problem solving is one of the strengths of the program. What makes chess such an incredible game is how it can be enjoyed on many different levels - problem solving is entirely different art to match play and can attract a very different type of enthusiast.

One of the best and worst things about the show is that there is very little that couldn't be translated to a tea time slot with the contestants being 11-14 year olds who had a basic understanding of the rules of chess but no experience in tournament play. We would certainly see an increase in junior membership if that happened! If it was up to me I might tweak the setting so there was more of a Knightmare feel to it but I'm showing my age with that one!

To be fair to the makers of the current show they haven't claimed what they are doing is on any parity with The Master Game; they just haven't denied it either.

[Christopher Kreuzer]

Thank you (Thomas Rendle)! It seems fitting that for a programme titled 'Chess Masters: the Endgame', learning how to do this endgame (with practical applications in actual play) may be the most useful thing most chess players get from the programme! (In 'Chess Masters: the Endgame 2.0', the knight and bishop mate. In 'Chess Masters: the Endgame 3.0', how to grind out wins in rook and bishop versus rook.)

[Steve Lovell]

For my part, having been disappointed by the first episode, I thought things were much improved in the second episode. It may just be that my expectations were better calibrated, but I think things were much helped by not having to squeeze 4 full games (plus the puzzle) into the time as they did in episode 1. It meant the content they had could be given more explanation.

I also liked that they gave less attention to the nicknames. Though I'm pretty sure David again referred to Navi as the "Unrelentless Warrior", which I think their editorial team should have caught.

I don't really get why they have so far shied away from opening names. Think how kids love dinosaur names and gardening programmes regularly use latin names of plants. They did briefly mention the "King's Gambit" opening in reference to the first Navi vs Cai match, though.

I'd still like for them to at least have pointed to some resources to learn the rules of the game and to stuff like the ECF Club Finder tool. Pointers such as that were always a regular feature of programmes produced with/for the Open University.