If this is your first visit, be sure to
check out the FAQ by clicking the
link above. You may have to register
before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages,
select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.
Policy / Politique
The fee for tournament organizers advertising on ChessTalk is $20/event or $100/yearly unlimited for the year.
Les frais d'inscription des organisateurs de tournoi sur ChessTalk sont de 20 $/événement ou de 100 $/année illimitée.
You can etransfer to Henry Lam at chesstalkforum at gmail dot com
Transfér à Henry Lam à chesstalkforum@gmail.com
Dark Knight / Le Chevalier Noir
General Guidelines
---- Nous avons besoin d'un traduction français!
Some Basics
1. Under Board "Frequently Asked Questions" (FAQs) there are 3 sections dealing with General Forum Usage, User Profile Features, and Reading and Posting Messages. These deal with everything from Avatars to Your Notifications. Most general technical questions are covered there. Here is a link to the FAQs. https://forum.chesstalk.com/help
2. Consider using the SEARCH button if you are looking for information. You may find your question has already been answered in a previous thread.
3. If you've looked for an answer to a question, and not found one, then you should consider asking your question in a new thread. For example, there have already been questions and discussion regarding: how to do chess diagrams (FENs); crosstables that line up properly; and the numerous little “glitches” that every new site will have.
4. Read pinned or sticky threads, like this one, if they look important. This applies especially to newcomers.
5. Read the thread you're posting in before you post. There are a variety of ways to look at a thread. These are covered under “Display Modes”.
6. Thread titles: please provide some details in your thread title. This is useful for a number of reasons. It helps ChessTalk members to quickly skim the threads. It prevents duplication of threads. And so on.
7. Unnecessary thread proliferation (e.g., deliberately creating a new thread that duplicates existing discussion) is discouraged. Look to see if a thread on your topic may have already been started and, if so, consider adding your contribution to the pre-existing thread. However, starting new threads to explore side-issues that are not relevant to the original subject is strongly encouraged. A single thread on the Canadian Open, with hundreds of posts on multiple sub-topics, is no better than a dozen threads on the Open covering only a few topics. Use your good judgment when starting a new thread.
8. If and/or when sub-forums are created, please make sure to create threads in the proper place.
Debate
9. Give an opinion and back it up with a reason. Throwaway comments such as "Game X pwnz because my friend and I think so!" could be considered pointless at best, and inflammatory at worst.
10. Try to give your own opinions, not simply those copied and pasted from reviews or opinions of your friends.
Unacceptable behavior and warnings
11. In registering here at ChessTalk please note that the same or similar rules apply here as applied at the previous Boardhost message board. In particular, the following content is not permitted to appear in any messages:
* Racism
* Hatred
* Harassment
* Adult content
* Obscene material
* Nudity or pornography
* Material that infringes intellectual property or other proprietary rights of any party
* Material the posting of which is tortious or violates a contractual or fiduciary obligation you or we owe to another party
* Piracy, hacking, viruses, worms, or warez
* Spam
* Any illegal content
* unapproved Commercial banner advertisements or revenue-generating links
* Any link to or any images from a site containing any material outlined in these restrictions
* Any material deemed offensive or inappropriate by the Board staff
12. Users are welcome to challenge other points of view and opinions, but should do so respectfully. Personal attacks on others will not be tolerated. Posts and threads with unacceptable content can be closed or deleted altogether. Furthermore, a range of sanctions are possible - from a simple warning to a temporary or even a permanent banning from ChessTalk.
Helping to Moderate
13. 'Report' links (an exclamation mark inside a triangle) can be found in many places throughout the board. These links allow users to alert the board staff to anything which is offensive, objectionable or illegal. Please consider using this feature if the need arises.
Advice for free
14. You should exercise the same caution with Private Messages as you would with any public posting.
The once exclusive 2700 club is no longer nearly so exclusive. Ding Liren, whose dramatic rook endgame win yesterday against Alexander Onishuk knocked the Americans out of the hunt for gold, became the club's newest member and that swells the membership to a record high 50!
Tangentially, Ding Liren becomes the 2nd teenaged member. Anish Giri, of course, is the other and youngest member. A full 30 of the 50 members are less than 30 years of age so youth is definitely being served. Nigel Short, who keeps entering and exiting the club, is the oldest member at 47.
For the record, Ding Liren's entry to the 2700 club was certainly a gift from Alexander Onishuk. The game was a theoretical draw until Onishuk uncorked his 55. ...Rh1? stinker (ChessVibes shows the proper way to draw)
It never ceases to amaze me just how frequently strong GMs manage to lose theoretically drawn positions. The Americans, of course, were the beneficiary the day before when Alexander Grischuk couldn't hold the theoretically drawn Rook vs Rook + Bishop endgame against Gata Kamsky. Admittedly, that's a more difficult hold and in practical play is lost well over a 1/3 of the time.
Onishuk might want to pick uo a good Rook endgame book (I say only slightly facetiously). I read recently that Canada's Peter Biyiasis became an IM (before becoming Canada's 3rd GM) by reading just two chess books - and remember this was long before the computer age when books were still king - his good friend, Bobby Fischer's 'My 60 Memorable Games' and, on point, Vassily Smyslov's 'Rook Endings'.
Biyiasas evidently honed his endgame skills in Vancouver coffee houses playing one-minute themed blitz matches with Canada's 2nd GM, Duncan Suttles. One of their favourite positions was said to be the Bishop + Knight vs lone King endgame when they had to deliver checkmate in the 60 seconds they allotted themselves. Bear in mind that there were no 30-second increments in those days so you had to know these positions cold if you wanted to secure the win before your clock ticked down.
Just a thought, but perhaps today's young juniors here in Canada should emulate Biyiasas and Suttles and start playing endgame themed blitz chess to hone their endgame skills. Lol, it might not even be a bad idea for some of the world's strong GMs.
Interestingly, in his excellent book 'Silman's Complete Endgame Course' Silman does not even recommend studying K, N + B vs lone K. "Bishop and Knight might never occur in your whole chess lifetime and is far too difficult to waste your precious study time on".
Regarding the deterioration of endgame play in recent times, I think it's due mainly to modern time controls. Today, endgames are typically reached when players are desperately short of time (in SD finishes), or at least compelled to move every 30 seconds or so (with increments). Compare this to the old days when games would be adjourned and a player, aided by second(s), would spend hours working out the correct lines of play. This actually increases the importance of endgame study today- the more technique you memorize, the less time you need to spend working things out at the board.
In Grandmaster Secrets: Endings, GM Andrew Soltis gave the following:
Estimated Odds of Your:
Ever Going Bald (if male).............................1 in 2.5
Ever Dying of a Heart Attack.......................1 in 5
Ever Playing R+B+K vs. R+K.........................1 in 40
Being Robbed This Year...............................1 in 500
Playing Out K+B+N vs. K This Year................1 in 3,000
Being Diagnosed with Lung Cancer This Year...1 in 7,500
Playing Q+(N-Pawn)+K vs. Q+K This Year.......1 in 8,000
Being Murdered This Year............................1 in 12,000
Soltis' philosophy is somewhat similar to Silman's, concerning the value of learning by heart supposedly infrequent endgames.
In my own career I've been on the verge of playing out the superior side of K+B+N vs. K once that I recall (my then young opponent conveniently resigned a little before I captured his last pawn, although I had sealed a move some moves earlier :)).
Once, in a training game with an 1900+ player who was to go overseas, I found myself on the inferior side of the K+B+N vs. K ending (after blundering against a Fort Knox French Rubenstein). It turned out that my opponent had completely mastered this ending - I played it out until mate in finding that out. Soon after that, I spent some time studying this ending and playing it out many times in five minute training sessions, i.e. well after my becoming a master. My study partner (a different one) had initially shown me a tournament game from Iceland between two 2300+ players, where the superior side had failed to convert. Apparently at least one fairly modern, but now deceased, GM once failed to convert this ending into a win in a tournament game, even with plenty of time on the clock. Other GMs were joking at the time that he ought to lose his title. :)
Anything that can go wrong will go wrong. Murphy's law, by Edward A. Murphy Jr., USAF, Aerospace Engineer
I'm a bit surprised at the rarity of the Q + Npawn + K vs Q + K ending. I could easily see this happening either with the original Queens, or (perhaps more likely) in a K and P ending where one player has an extra pawn and both players Queen one of their pawns.
In Grandmaster Secrets: Endings, GM Andrew Soltis gave the following:
Estimated Odds of Your:
Ever Going Bald (if male).............................1 in 2.5
Ever Dying of a Heart Attack.......................1 in 5
Ever Playing R+B+K vs. R+K.........................1 in 40
Being Robbed This Year...............................1 in 500
Playing Out K+B+N vs. K This Year................1 in 3,000
Being Diagnosed with Lung Cancer This Year...1 in 7,500
Playing Q+(N-Pawn)+K vs. Q+K This Year.......1 in 8,000
Being Murdered This Year............................1 in 12,000
I wonder what the odds would have been on ever claiming a draw by repetition of position and having Abe Yanofsky on the appeals committee which decided the validity of the claim. I got the draw.
I'm a bit surprised at the rarity of the Q + Npawn + K vs Q + K ending. I could easily see this happening either with the original Queens, or (perhaps more likely) in a K and P ending where one player has an extra pawn and both players Queen one of their pawns.
If memory serves, I've had that endgame at least once in my tournament career, e.g. in a QGD Classical Orthodox main line Rubenstein Attack (ECO code D69) as Black against David Gordon years ago [edit: it was in Ottawa in 1996]. That line often requires heavy grinding and/or luck for Black to win against reasonable opposition. I had the luck factor, as David inexplicably left his lone c-pawn en prise after we both promoted queens. After that I eventually won with my lone b-pawn.
Last edited by Kevin Pacey; Sunday, 9th September, 2012, 09:28 PM.
Anything that can go wrong will go wrong. Murphy's law, by Edward A. Murphy Jr., USAF, Aerospace Engineer
I remember playing K+N+B against a lone K when I was an unrated junior. My opponent, a solid 16-1700 club player, never thought i'd be able to convert.
Message to youngsters: screw Silman and Soltis, take 5-10 minutes of your time to learn about that one!
Regarding the deterioration of endgame play in recent times, I think it's due mainly to modern time controls. Today, endgames are typically reached when players are desperately short of time (in SD finishes), or at least compelled to move every 30 seconds or so (with increments). Compare this to the old days when games would be adjourned and a player, aided by second(s), would spend hours working out the correct lines of play. This actually increases the importance of endgame study today- the more technique you memorize, the less time you need to spend working things out at the board.
Time was clearly not an issue today in London, Ken, when Wang Hao uncorked one of the most egregious rook endgame blunders I've ever witnessed. The simple 55. ...Rxf4 and he could have simply shaken hands with Gelfand. Instead he played 55. ...Kh7?????????? and had to resign the very next move since he would have to sac his rook to make it a mate in two rather than a mate in one. It's almost inconceivable to me that an elite GM (China's best!) could make such a bonehead move. And as I said, there was not even a hint of zeitnot. Wang Hao had 58 minutes on his clock, almost triple the 19:43 left on Gelfand's clock. You can of course check out the game yourself at:
The simple 55. ...Rxf4 and he could have simply shaken hands with Gelfand. Instead he played 55. ...Kh7?????????? and had to resign the very next move[...]
Wow! That was bad. Had a quick look at around move 45. I thought, well, there's no way a GM could lose this, so no point in following that game anymore.
And then... 55...Kh7???
I understand that some theoretically drawn endgames are relatively complex in practice, even for 2700+ players. Most endgames with queens still on board require a lot of calculation. And most endgames with 2-3 pieces leave a lot of room for blunders. Computers evals are thus extremely harsh, even for the best players.
But this game... White has no direct threats and you have 1h left to choose between 55...Rxf4 and 55...Kh7.
And even Gelfand's play was definitely subpar (52.Rc8 instead of 52.Rg7 would have forced the black king on the uncomfortable h7 square). White has a forced win after 52.Rc8 Kh7 53.Kf7 or so it seems. And Gelfand is not an inexperienced junior, was not under time pressure etc.
My feeling is that the effect of faster time controls is not direct (i.e. blunders), but indirect. Because of the faster time controls, we (chessplayers at large) are not playing endgames as much as before. At the top level, they put 90% of their energy on openings.
Thus, most players look 'rusty' when playing some endgames (lack of practice or knowledge).
In that regard, Carlsen seems to be the (refreshing!) exception.
My feeling is that the effect of faster time controls is not direct (i.e. blunders), but indirect. Because of the faster time controls, we (chessplayers at large) are not playing endgames as much as before. At the top level, they put 90% of their energy on openings.
Thus, most players look 'rusty' when playing some endgames (lack of practice or knowledge).
In that regard, Carlsen seems to be the (refreshing!) exception.
Mathieu
There were two more horrendous endgame debacles today, one in London and one in San Paulo. Carlsen pulled a nice swindle at the latter venue in a Bishop vs Knight endgame. His 32. ...h4 pawn push was still a dead draw providing Vallejo did not capture. Sure enough, Vallejo played 33.gxh4?? and was dead lost. And once again, time was not a factor since he had more than an hour on his clock. Hard to believe that an elite GM would not have known, even intuitively, that he had to keep the pawn on the g file and not the h file (making the Bishop the wrong coloured Bishop as well as keeping the pawn one file closer to Carlsen's d pawn).
The London example was more forgivable. Dominguez missed a clear win (+6.27) against Nakamura but had to find a Bishop sac for the win. Nakamura even gave him a second chance to find the sac when he tried to repeat. With two connected advanced passed pawns you would think that an elite GM would realize the pawns were winning once you eliminated Nakamura's one blockading pawn. They may well be elite GMs but they're not elite endgame players.
It's almost inconceivable to me that an elite GM (China's best!) could make such a bonehead move. http://chessbomb.com/site/
Once Vladimir Kramnik blundered into a basic mate in one in a dead serious match vs a computer. All the best players in history have experienced similar lapses. Such blunders have nothing to do with "endgame technique" or any other chess technique. They are caused by the "human factor" against which there is no 100% sure protection.
Tweet
Comment