january 15 2013
false bond 2 (the non-return)
The object (which I catch) is by the Official Greffier himself and you will have recognised the spirit of it.
I'll move on to the more classic report than last week's, as my brother-in-law didn't invite me to share a large bottle of Saint Julien this time. I have to admit that a bottle of nectar costing more than 100€ is neither in our habits nor in our means. The Médoc (and other regions for that matter) are full of treasures.
Sad news, then, that the cumulative defections of Gregory and Remy. Defections of which I was kept in the dark since I was absent all day from my home and from reading my mailbox because of Mémoriel B Vallée.
So I was once again under the threat of being the only listener when Antoni arrived and, as an unexpected cherry on the virtual cake, he was even accompanied by a colleague of his, who at the same time became a new recruit to the club and to the potential Ile de France cheminote team. I forgot to ask him for his name and contact details in order to put him on the mailing list. I apologise for this and I am counting on Antoni to communicate this information to me and to transmit this report to him.
As it was also St Remi's day (and I suppose St Remy's day too) I had prepared my welcome to the Chief Registrar with the cry of "Bow your head, proud Sicambre, humbly lower your neck. Adore what you have burned and burn what you have adored!" Alas, I had my fill of my revision of the baptism of Clovis. Well done, that will teach me to want to show off.
A quick word on the B Vallée tournament which was held opposite the Gare de Lyon (but still in Paris). It was held in the middle of the week, so the attendance was reduced to 12 participants, but the tournament was very convivial, the Ile de France Committee (organiser) going so far as to offer the meal (which was very good) in the canteen. Thanks to him for this attention and for the organisation.
A word from the boss
Rest for Daniel. Only two helpmates, a classic exhumed from a great composer who died recently and a 5# helpmate with model mats. A slight tip: there are 3 solutions but only two different mats.
Our first 3# was commented on by world champion R. Matthews: "To be shown to a player as an example of modern high-level composition, yet easily understood". Don't skimp on the material. The second one is less ambitious, yet with great finesse. Finally two 5#'s as different from each other as it is possible to be. The second one should not make anyone suffer. The more economical one requires more thought, but it is solved by elimination...
A rook endgame that looks like it was taken from the local tournament. The depth in addition. Reminiscent of a fable by La Fontaine, a film with Demi Moore, another with Robert Mitchum... and also a study that had Yusupov in a lather. Note that a pawn endgame here is indeed winning for Black, but by pushing the "h" pawn, not the "a" pawn!
The definitive form of the Grigoriyevian catches of an unchained Knight?
A King's move in the middle, in the middle of the opening, by an ex-world champion? Why not? Probably an idea of his "slave" Igor Zaitsev. An idea that is still not out of fashion. The game might never have gone down in history, however, as the ending was somewhat chaotic... Note that the 11th "genius" move was proposed instantly by Daniel, who does not remember ever having seen this game. And many excellent moves were indicated by the audience, modest in number but not in quality.
See you in a fortnight on Tuesday 29 January. May God keep you.
Enjoy the game.
Before leaving us, he gave me a mate in 3 moves that I looked for as soon as I arrived at the club, waiting for the Master to arrive.
It is in fact a twin: the Ws play and I mate in 3 moves. Then the same statement, but shifting all the pieces one file to the left.
I strongly advise the readers to look for these problems, they will not regret it after having found the not so difficult solutions since I found them in less than 30'.
Firstly, the homework exercise given in the previous lesson.
I searched for it, but finding that 1:Kg7 b5; 2:Kxg6 b4; 3:Nf6 b3; 4:Nd5 b2; 5:Nc3 loses on the one hand because this K+P/N position wins and on the other hand because Kg6 is very badly placed, a clever way to intervene more quickly with N by losing only one K time is :
1:Ng5 b5; 2:Kg7 b4; 3:Ne4 b3 4:Nc4! b2; 5:Nd3+ and draw. Alas, there also B wins because they have a better suite at the 3rd move.
One can therefore think that it is too difficult and give up.
Knowing the solution, I absolutely advise you against it!
Knowing the above, I assert that the solution is findable (when we know it exists and that it is neither Kg7 nor Ng5).
To say that it is findable obviously means that one cannot launch into infinite trees of variants. You have to be very "forceful". What is great is that when you have found it, you have understood the essential in the N vs P struggle.
As I said, looking directly at the solution gives a lot of pleasure but does not bring much. To understand this study, you need to clarify 1:Rxh7 and 1:exf4 (where Rxf4? 2:Rxa7! would draw). In this kind of positions (just like in the endgame), culture plays an essential role in the sense that to choose a plan or a move, one must correctly evaluate the different candidate plans or moves. And to do this, one must push the analysis until one encounters positions that one can judge without error. The more solid the culture, the closer this calculation horizon is and that makes all the difference.
1st: find the W win (the fastest)
2nd: W's make a draw.
Kamsky - Karpov (1993, the date being important for the theoretical aspect).
1.e4 c6 2.d4 d5 3.Nd2 dxe4 4.Nxe4 Nd7 5.Ng5 Ngf6 6.Bd3 e6 7.N1f3 Bd6 [Karpov says that Be7, Qc7 and h6 are possible. So he considers that 7...h6 8.Nxe6 is not to be feared. Yet Deep Blue showed against Kasparov in 1997 that it was winning.]
8.Qe2 h6 9.Ne4 [ Karpov says that 9.Nxe6 is harmless, which is wrong even if it is not necessarily winning]
9...Nxe4 10.Qxe4 Nf6 11.Qh4 Ke7!!
A theoretical novelty that Karpov says he prepared for his match against Kasparov. On the one hand, this move threatens to win a piece by g5-g4, on the other hand it seems to be the only serious move, the others being bad. [For example 11...0-0? 12.Bxh6 gxh6 13.Qxh6 +- because 13...Re8? is refuted by 14.Ng5 which is a much stronger move when the R is no longer on f8. Hence the obvious continuation (when you have understood everything) 13...c5 14.g4! Re8 15.Ng5!+-]
12.Ne5! (the only move) 12...Bxe5 13.dxe5 Qa5+ 14.c3 Qxe5+ 15.Be3 b6 16.0–0–0 g5!?
[A move I cannot bring myself to validate. The lasting weakening of the B-squares seems unacceptable to me. Of course, I agree that this kind of consideration is totally obvious to Karpov and that if he played this move here in spite of the safety principles of K, it is by relying on a very precise calculation and by having foreseen continuations fighting against the W control of the black squares.
Nevertheless, if I conceive that this move is good at Karpov's level, I remain convinced that it would be a big mistake at a 2000-2200 level with a good tactical player on the W side].
17.Qa4 c5 18.Rhe1 Bd7 19.Qa3 Rhd8 20.g3 Qc7 21.Bd4 Be8 22.Kb1 Rd5 23.f4 Rad8
24.Bc2 R5d6 25.Bxf6+ Kxf6 26.fxg5+ hxg5 27.Rxd6 Rxd6 28.c4 Ke7 29.Qe3 f6 30.h4! The W's proposed a draw, and contrary to what Karpov says, there is no B-advantage, the advance of an h-pawn against two linked pawns "e" and "f" being insufficient in the Rook endgame but being sufficient in the Bishop endgame.
30...gxh4 31.gxh4 Qd7 32.Qh6 e5 33.h5? [33.Rg1!] 33:..Qg4! [empêche le plan Qg7+ suivi de h6]
34.Qh7+ Kd8? 35.h6! Rd2 36.Qf5? [36.Qxa7!] 36...Qxf5 37.Bxf5 Bd7? [37...Rh2! still secured a draw] 38.Bg6? [38.Kc1! Rd4 39.Be4! +-] 38...Rh2 39.h7 Ke7 and now it's lost, the moves don't matter so much, we've accelerated and I've stopped noting.. 0–1
I am now joining the Master's report, as prompt as ever.
Hoping that the next session (January 29) will not give the Master Clerk another false (exit) order.
Indeed the position of the second "homework" was wrong.
Here it is corrected (I hope).
We had trouble understanding the solution because we (wrongly) got stuck on a rule point.
Here is the solution to the first problem with some explanations. I will let the reader look for the twin.
1:Qe8-h8 (the B's start!) f2-f3
2:Bh1xf3 the Pf3 is reborn on the original square of the B, i.e. on c8, and as it is on the 8th, it promotes to the piece of its choice, a Q. The move Bxh3 thus brings up a wQ on c8.
To which W answers with Qd3-f5 mate.
Question: why the key Qh8?
Answer: if the e8-square were occupied, the Bs would answer KxQf5, this Q could not be reborn and would disappear, and the Qc8 would not checkmate because it would be paralysed by the bQ.
Question: but then, why doesn't 1:Qe8-e7 also work?
Answer: because in the final position, B would simply answer Qe6 or Qf6 parrying the check by paralysis.
Last question: why can't B play KxFf5 in the end position?
Very pleasant answer: in the end position, Q c8 and h8 paralyse well, but Kxf5 would resurrect the Q at e8 and this would unparalyse Qc8 which would now be free to capture Kf5.
The twin is of the same type, with a change of square colours.
The following is of possible interest only to those who would like to look for the twin and who are unfamiliar with the fairy rules. For potential readers who meet these criteria, I try to explain the false problems we encountered due to our unfamiliarity with the rules and hope that this will help them.
Where did the difficulty at the table come from?
We said to ourselves: why in the final position is Kd4 (or Kd6) forbidden? The real answer is that N simply controls the square, but we thought that for K to be really in check on d4, N had to be able to capture it definitively, i.e. without K being able to revive on N's original b1-square. And this idea was reinforced by the thought that Rb1 could only serve this purpose (to prevent the revival). And in this case we did not understand why in the final position the K was mate since the square (d1) of origin of the Q was free.
In fact, all this made no sense, because the justification for the existence of Rb1 is more prosaically to avoid demolitions by playing the Bc1 in the twin, because then this move would checkmate the wK.
A little clarification. On seeing the first 3# on the table (with RBg6) your master builder immediately said that he knew about this problem. But only when Daniel told him about the twin (with RBf6) did he then point out the two authors (Jokisch and Laws), the book from which they were taken ("Classic chess problems" by K. Howard) and the key to the second one. Then we moved on. He only found the key to the first one when he got home, after a minute and a half. Let us add a historical error: he thought he remembered that they had been composed independently (this sometimes happens, without the slightest plagiarism) which is false; the second was composed after the first, with full knowledge of the facts and quoting the source. This nineteenth-century Englishman was fair game.
That said, the Acting Greffier has again done a very good job. Note that he is, though retired, i.e. reborn, of fine stature and straight as an 'i' (only one, and without a 'z'), so that the titular greffier could not have replied 'Arch your head, proud if you bend'.
In Becker's study, 1 exf4? Rxf4? 2 Rxh7! is better than 2 Rxa7? Rh4!
In the 2nd homework assignment, there is also a black c6 pawn.
I don't think Black is winning after the 39th move but I have to plead guilty: I didn't mention it in class (lack of time, always...). There are still reciprocal faults and Black is not winning until the 41st move.
The acting greffier didn't mention the one fairy seen in the restaurant but that's not essential.
Enjoy the game.
Add a comment