A game brought to my attention by a video lesson by Dejan Bojkov on Chess.com offers a nice display of Ann Chumpitaz's king hunting skill. The game was played in the Continental Championship in Lima, Peru last February.
Mark Dvoretsky, Dvoretsky's Endgame Manual, employs the term tragicomedy for instructive endgames where serious errors were committed, often by strong players. As I am working my way through Chess Informant 128, now knowing that I will not complete my course through every article prior to the arrival of Informant 129 next week (see "Determination"), another tragicomedy presented itself at the start of Karsten Mueller's endgame column. Mueller's focus in this issue is zugzwang.
Mueller presents this position from Georgiev -- Berkes, Tallinn 2016.
White to move
Georgiev played 79.Ke5? and settled for a draw after twenty more moves. Mueller points out that after 79.Kg5, White will be able to put Black in zugzwang. ChessBase News (24 January 2016) shows that 79.f3 also wins. CB News also displays Georgiev's tweet, where he notes that he missed wins both against Berkes and against Gelfand.
Additional information, if accurate, is available at Chess Bomb. Playing through the game score there reveals move times. According to Chess Bomb's times, Georgiev spent six seconds on 79.Ke5 and had only 43 seconds left on his clock at the time. Berkes had 1:36 left.
How many players at any level could have found 79.Kg5 or 79.f3 in six seconds?
Yesterday, I was showing an ending from a blitz game to an adult student. As he does not play blitz, he seemed skeptical of the value of understanding errors that were made because they were played without thought.
It was a challenging teaching moment for me. In blitz, play is by intuition most of the time. How important is this intuition when there is plenty of time on the clock?
We backed the game up to the beginning of the endgame, when I forced queens off the board to go into an pawn ending that I considered comfortable.
Black to move
I played 37...Qg6+ after six seconds thought. For the rest of the game both players moved in one and zero seconds every move, suggesting that we were racing the clock more than playing the board. Nonetheless, during my postgame analysis, I sought to extract the truth of the position as preparation for the lesson with my student.
He wanted to know what I would have thought about if I had fifteen minutes.
Black's pawn structure is worse, I said. With queens on the board, both players are playing for three results: win, draw, or loss. Exchanging queens, I said, reduces the possibilities to two. I am playing for a win or a draw.
However, that explanation assumes correct play. In fact, with correct play this game should be drawn with or without queens. Exchanging queens eliminates the isolated pawn, as was my intent. Even so, both players have three results possible. It is a draw with correct play and a win for one player if the other blunders.
As it happens, I blundered.
38.Qxg6 hxg6 39.Kf3 Ke7 40.Ke4 Ke6 41.g4
Black to move
White's last move restrains Black from playing 41...f5?? Yet, that is exactly the move that I played.
This error gives White an outside passed pawn on the h-file. Black's king is forced to contend with the h-pawn, permitting the White king time to mop up the other pawns. See "Outside Passed Pawn" and "Fox in the Chicken Coop".
Even so, it is not as simple as racing over to the a-file thanks to Black's pawn majority in the center.
Later, my opponent erred by pushing the h-pawn prematurely. My blunder was the second to the last error, and it was the last error that decided the game.
With enough time to think, I would not have played 41...f5. Likewise, my opponent would have held back the h-pawn if not for his or her time pressure.
Today in a rapid game, I played instantly in a position that required a simple counting exercise. Counting might have taken five seconds, but I moved instantly (see "Panic Mode"). My memory or my intuition gave me the result of counting without expending the five seconds to verify. I could have invested the five seconds with ninety seconds remaining on the clock, plus a small increment that can add time.
White to move
It is helpful to be working with a skeptical adult student who wants to learn endgames. He will distrust my intuitive blitzing mode and ask how I calculate.
How do I know that White's h-pawn will promote before Black's a-pawn?
54. Rxg5?? leads to a position where both players have the same number of pawns and neither player can hope for more than a draw. That's why I played 54.Rxc7+ and went on to win the game after a successful pawn race.
If the rook exchange took place on c6, instead of c7, the Black king gets White's a-pawn one move faster. Even then, however, White's queen covers the promotion square and the Black king is too far beyond its pawn.
It seems to me that counting is not the only element of knowledge of rook endgames and pawn endgames that guided my intuition here. There are many pawn races where pawns promote in opposite corners. In the dramatic denouement of the film Searching for Bobby Fisher (1993), Josh Waitzkin's opponent promoted first. However, his king stood on the long diagonal. Josh promoted his pawn with check and skewered the king to win the queen.
My memory of the ending of this movie was not conscious during the game. Did it contribute to informing my intuition?
After playing too many bullet games over the past few days, I played instant moves during a critical phase of a rapid game. Although I had six or seven minutes left on the clock, I moved as if I was down to the last few seconds.
I played the opening slower, but it did not go as planned. My first few moves were a gambit that I have had success with not only in blitz, but also over the board and in correspondence chess. However, my opponent met my gambit with an unusual reply. If his plan was unsound, I failed to find the refutation. At least, that's how I felt about the game. After sacrificing a pawn, no attack materialized. Soon, Black picked up another pawn and seemed to have as much of an attack as I did.
Nonetheless, the dreaded knight fork of my two rooks was deferred and I was able to get some pressure on the kingside. Postgame analysis with an engine revealed that I was afraid of empty threats. My position was better than I thought. Meanwhile, Black's queenside remained undeveloped with neither bishop nor rook yet mobilized.
Black has just grabbed the second pawn.
White to move
White has a forced checkmate in six, but I did not know that. The first three moves were instantly perceived and instantly played. Then, three memorized patterns competed for my intuitive mode and I selected the least effective.
26.Qe7+ Rf7 27.Rh7+ Kxh7 28.Qxf7+ Kh8
White to move
I played 29.Rh1+, which is still winning, but served to bring Black's queenside bishop into play, albeit without a future.
During postgame analysis before turning on the engine, 29.Rxg6 suggested itself. This move threatens both Qg7# and Rh6#. Black cannot defend against both, but can delay for five moves. Alas, these non-checking moves, even when they force a result, are too easily overlooked when playing in panic mode. Such a move takes only a few seconds to spot, however. With more than six minutes left on the clock, I could have taken these few seconds to check for checkmate patterns.
Even better, and forcing, is the immediate sequence that begins with 29.Qe8+. This move, too, is part of a memorized pattern that I would often play when I am not distracted by the check on the h-file. Perhaps due to play in panic mode, I had subconsciously erased the undeployed bishop from my consciousness. Maybe I thought that Rh1+ was checkmate.
A few moves later, I had a forced draw by repetition while still down material. I played two moves of the repetition and set up my opponent to play the third. Perhaps he, too, overestimated his position. He avoided the draw. After a few moves more, I saw an opportunity to liquidate into an ending with a queen, bishop, and three pawns for me and a queen and four pawns for my opponent.
One of the ways that I am enjoying Tadic and Arsovic, Encyclopedia of Chess Miniatures (2015) is working through the games in which Black played the French Defense. The French is my primary response to 1.e4, so it behooves me to be well aware of the pitfalls. Last week, a miniature won by Alexander Ivanov in 2002 caught my eye.* His opponent was Jarod J. Bryan, who had been Maine State Champion in 1988 and 1998, and has won that title five more times since his quick loss to Ivanov at the 2002 Bradley Open.
In this miniature, Ivanov applied strong pressure after some slight inaccuracies by Bryan. Black's position collapsed quickly. The game is notable in the Encyclopedia for the presence of two diagrams. Most games have one.
Already, Black's position seems difficult. ChessBase database indicates that White scores over 70% in most lines.
Tadic and Arsovic offer as better 9...d4 10.h4 b6 11.Bf4, but even here the statistics favor White by a significant margin.
The relatively untested 9...b5 offers hope for Black if statistics have merit. 10.cxb5 Na5.
10.dxc4 Qc7 11.Bf4 a6 12.Rd1
Black to move
12...Rd8 13.Nc3 Nf8 is worth filing away for possible exploration later. The line appears untested, at least in the sort of games that work their way into the database.
As I played through this game in the North Spokane Library repeatedly, I kept looking at this knight. First, it seems a little tardy to enter the action, and thus easy to overlook. Second, once it enters the battle, Black seems busted.
13...Rd8 14.Ne4 Nd4?
14...h6 is offered as an improvement in the Encyclopedia. Stockfish prefers 14...Bf8, which strikes me as sensible given the tactics centered on f6.
White to move
The Encyclopedia has this diagram.
16...gxf6 17.Rxd4 cxd4 18.Qg4+ Kf8 19.exf6+-.
17...Qd8 was the last chance to suffer longer.
The second diagram in the Encyclopedia appears here.
*Alexander Ivanov should not be confused with Boris Ivanov, who was banned from competition by the Bulgarian Chess Federation due to suspicions of cheating. Alexander Ivanov lives in Boston, Massachusetts and shared the 1995 U.S. Championship. He was awarded the Grand Master title in 1991.
Working my way through the endgame compositions in Genrikh Kasparian, 888 Miniature Studies (2010) has put me in the midst of forty studies by A. A. Troitsky (1866-1942).* Many of these feature clever checkmates with knights. Here is an example.
White to move
Kasparian's solution is presumably the one offered by Troitsky. However, playing the position against a computer reveals an alternate solution. In Kasparian's solution, all of White's moves are the only move leading to advantage.
1.Ne3 g5 2.Kf3 g4
Here the computer played 2...h4, leading to 3.g4 Kh2 4.Nf5 Kg1 5.Nxh6 h3 6.Nf5 Kf1 7.Kg3+-.
3.Kf2 h4 4.Ng2 hxg3 5.Kg1
Black to move
Black's king can no longer move, forcing the pawn forward until the king is wholly trapped. Then, the knight delivers checkmate.
5...h5 6.Kh1 h4 7.Nf4#.
*Kasparian employs the spelling Troitski, while most English language texts use Troitsky.
These two compositions were brought to my attention through Genrikh Moiseyevich Kasparian, 888 Miniature Studies (2010), which I acquired last week. This book is an expansion of the author's 555 Miniature Studies (1975). This earlier book, as far as I know, was never translated into English. The present work was left in manuscript at the time of the author's death, but was brought into publication fifteen years later through the assistance of his son, Sergei Kasparian.
White to move
Johann Berger 1888
This study is number 17 in Kasparian. I read through the solution, which is under the diagram, and then proceeded to try making sense of it. When I thought I had reached a reasonable understanding of the ideas, I tried playing it against Stockfish. My first effort led to failure, so I returned to the solution. In my second try against Stockfish, I was able to win easily. I continued working with the problem, however, seeking to develop the ability to explain in plain English to beginning chess players how to understand the solution.
Having given the solution so much attention, I looked in Berger's book, Theorie und Praxis der Endspiele (1890) where I was surprised to find the problem was credited to an obscure publication, Columbia Chess Chronicle III, no. 13 (1888). After some searching, I found the problem on the cover of the issue named, where Berger is confirmed as the composer.
Readers of this blog are encouraged to offer their solutions in the comments below. I will refrain from presenting the solution, except in reply to comments.
White to move
Karl Behting 1894
Kasparian credits C. Behting, Rigaer Tageblatt 1894 (21). Tageblatt translates as "daily paper". I do not know whether that is the name of a specific news publication or a generic term for one or more of several newspapers in Riga. Its use in other publications that I have examined suggets that it is a specific paper.
Karl Behting (Kārlis Bētiņš) was a Latvian chess player and composer. The Latvian Gambit bears its name because he studied it with other Riga players and published an article in St. Petersburger Zeitung (1909). Many of his compositions were published in newspapers in Riga, then were republished in books and magazines that culled problems from other publications. I found a version of this problem in Baltische Schachblätter, Issues 6-8 (1898). Below this point, I am presenting the problem as found there and the solution. Of interest in the solution is a technical chess term that is new to me and worth adding to the lexicon of chess terms: Tempozug.
Tempozug means to waste a tempo; that is, to make a move that does not change the position. A Tempozug places the opponent in Zugzwang.
Solution to Second Problem
Behting's composition in Baltische Schachblätter.
Credit here is given to Johann Behting, Karl's older brother. A 1930 publication, Studien und Problem lists both Johann and Karl as authors, suggesting collaboration. Were there separate publications of this problem by both brothers? The position attributed to Johann begins one move earlier than the version of the same problem that Kasparian credits to Karl. Some insights into the compositions of these brothers is offered by John Beasley, "Some Studies by Johann and Carl Behting," British Endgame Study News 52 (September 2007), www.jsbeasley.co.uk/besn/s52.pdf.
Scholastic players and parents: The label "Problem of the Week" links to posts that contain my "lesson of the week." These blog posts serve to reinforce what is presented in my after school and in-school chess clubs.
I am available for one-on-one lessons in person or online. Use the contact form below if interested.