One from Cozio

Position 132

Carlo Cozio (c. 1715 -- c. 1780) is best known for a book published in two volumes, Il Giuoco degli Scacchi o sia Nuova idea di attacchi, difese e partiti del Giuoco degli Scacchi (1766), and for an offbeat variation for Black against the Spanish opening. An original of his book is dated 1740, and was in the collection of Lothar Schmid, according to A. J. Roycroft in his article, "Cozio!, Part I", in the magazine EG (July 1973). Roycroft asserts, "occasionally the play is either atrocious or incomprehensible." Nonetheless, some of his work has been deemed to be of value. Roycroft published 9 of Cozio's studies in Test Tube Chess: A Comprehensive Introduction to the Chess Endgame Study (1972) and 18 more in his article in EG.

After a game that I played yesterday, I went looking in Yuri Averbakh, Rook v. Minor Piece Endings (1978) for some guidance regarding my errors. The position Averbakh gives is credited to Cozio.

After reaching an endgame of bishop vs. rook and pawn that I thought I could draw, I managed to throw the draw away no less than ten times in 31 moves. I drew because my opponent did not know how to exploit my errors. More likely, neither of us recognized the errors for the blunders that they are.

White to move

This position, which occurred in my game yesterday, is identical to Cozio's number 132 as it appears in Harold van der Heijden, Endgame Study Database VI (2020). If you read the Italian in the screenshot above, you will see that it mirrors diagonally the one in Cozio's text, but changes nothing vital. Colors are reversed and the defending king is in in the opposite corner. In Averbakh's book, Cozio's colors are maintained with Black defending, but the position is flipped vertically.

White's defense is relatively simple. Keep the bishop on the b8-h2 diagonal. Averbakh makes this technique clear. I had been reading this book last week, preparing lessons for my students on rook vs. bishop endgames, but had not yet gotten to the point where Cozio's study is presented (28). Otherwise, I would have known what I was doing. However, my confidence that I could draw stemmed from this study and practice with my students of similar endings--rook vs bishop without a pawn.  I reasoned correctly that a rook pawn did not change much. After some unfavorable developments, I raced my king to the "safe corner". My opponent should have prevented this journey.

77.Bc7 Kf3 78.Bb6??

78.Bb8 or 78.Kg1 hold the draw.

78...Rf1+ 79.Kh2

Black to move

79...Rb1??

79...Rc1 is the only move that wins here. Black must understand White's defensive idea and prevent the bishop's return to the critical diagonal. The direct attack on the bishop forces the bishop back where it belongs.

80.Bc7 Kg4 81.Bd6 Rf1 82.Bc7 Rf2+ 83.Kh1

We have returned to the position after my 77th move.

83...Rg2 84.Bd6 Kf3 85.Bc5??

This was the ninth time that my bishop wandered away from its duties.

85...Ke2 86.Bb6??

The tenth and last.

Black to move

86...Kf1

Again, Black should have prevented the bishop's immediate return to the correct diagonal with 86...Rg7.

87.Bc5

Knowing what I do now, I would play 87.Bc7. But in this position, it is not critical. Black's king should be seeking to go to h3 after the pawn advances. That becomes possible if I keep leaving the key diagonal.

87...Rc2 88.Bb6 Rg2 and the game was drawn by repetition.

The moves Cozio gives in his book are less instructive, but he keeps the bishop on the correct diagonal.

White to move

1.Rc8+ Ka7 2.Rc7+ Ka8 3.Kb5 Bd4 4.Kc6 Be3 5.a7 Bxa7 6.Rc8 Bb8

We reach a position that I have been teaching to my students the past two weeks.

White to move

7.Rh8 Ka7 8.Kb5 Ka8

White cannot make progress.

9.Kb6 Stalemate.