april 15 2014
Daniel's word
Due to the repeated and regrettable absence of the Chief Recorder, I was forced to replace him.
Unfortunately, as I am far from being as efficient as he is, it captures too much of my time to be able to carry out this task in a reasonable time.
Nevertheless, here is a brief account of the session, hoping for a rapid end to the difficulties that are keeping Rémy prevented and away from the course.
Attendance was reduced as only Marc was present. He therefore prevented the course from turning into a private lesson and allowed it to proceed more or less normally thanks to the invaluable support he provided for the analyses.
I prefer to develop the study solutions by adding comments that could be considered as chatter, but I hope that this will help some possible readers to better understand some ideas in order to be able to present these studies in their rooks in the framework of initiations that they could carry out in their club.
Correction of the exercises.
Exercise 1. The position given was supposed to correct an erroneous analysis of Kramnik that I had erroneously attributed to Kasparov (but one only lends to the rich).
Master's words
Three helpmates 2# with one solution, which hardly exists any more. Only the first one will make you think. As well as another one in 3.5 moves (White to move).
Two 3# from a world champion. A tip for the second: 2 X 3 X 2! An old strategic 5#: immobilisation of a trick. A very nice moremover where I left the solution lying around. Before reading it, see if you think of the 5th move. I also leave the solution in the last miracle of the selfmate wizard: Quadruple promotion coupled with the 4 moves of a single pawn.
We know about Kasparov's sloppy analysis. It is much rarer to capture Kramnik at fault, but it can happen!
Conjugated squares in the Bishop and Pawns endgame, that changes us a bit... A recent prize, but a judge like we find less and less.
A master of defence (and strategy) in... attack, against a master attacker. It is not sad. But curiously, the brilliant move that was praised, the opponent giving up 6 moves later, was not at all the best. Worse, it was one of the few not to win!
Watch out! See you next week, on Tuesday 22 April. May God keep you.
Have a good time.
1:...Rb5+ 2:Kc4! Ra5 3:Rg6 Ke7! seems to ensure the draw because if it is useful for the B to capture f4, it is even more urgent to bring back the K to participate in the defence. The bK confined on the "d" file cut by the wR on the "e" file would be hopeless against the wK accompanying his P "g". 4:Kb4! Rd5 5:Kc3! and I did not note the continuation of this very fine fight between the two camps leading the N to the draw because Marc proposed a very relevant winning plan.
I leave the reader to look for (after 3:...Ke7!) the W's plan to win the Pf5 while keeping the Pf4.
So we do : Rb6-b4 then Kd4 then Rb4-c4-c5 (possibly preceded by a check on the 6th if the bK is there).
This plan occupied us a good moment and I leave it to the interested reader to look for the Black defence, which the Master will not fail to indicate in his electronic report.
I searched for this study, found some basic ideas including a position in which the B's lose because of a zugzwang but the deeper idea of the solution had escaped me.
1:e3 (obviously, if B plays e3 himself the win will be easy). Let us note in passing that a typical solutionist reasoning (this is not pejorative at all) is to say to oneself that if one plays e3 in a row, Bh1 will have to come back to defend via g2 or f3 and that there is no visible difference between these two moves, and thus that there would be a dual, and thus that Pe2 must first force the B to play the unique move Bg2...
It is necessary to recognize that to reason thus in a resolution of study is a sign of experiment and cannot be condemned, but in this case e3 is indeed the only move, the two possible returns of the B by g2 or f3 form a quite minor dual which one will despise .... and all is well thus!
1:...Bg2(or Be3) 2:f5 (why?) Bh3 3:f6!! and here is the idea so difficult to imagine: W's fight without the trump of their Pf4 but use the fact that the b1-h7 diagonal is shortened by the Pe4 to simply threaten to push h7 (without ever doing it) and mobilize K and the opposing B to oppose it because the Bf5 is persecuted and has no other support than its K.
Let us note to appreciate this idea at its true value that the idea would quickly prove insufficient if the B were not afflicted by the presence of the Pf6 which they cannot get rid of and without which they would have a clear gain! (Hence the two!! at the f6 move).
3:...ef 4:Kh7 Bf5+ 5:Kg8 and W's will draw through several zugzwang (reciprocal) positions. The moves are quite easy to find if you have the right cues: W must obviously always threaten to push h7 and prevent B from advancing by Bg6 and Kf5.
5:Kg8 (5:Kg7? Bf5!) Kd6 6:Kf8!! a move that seems difficult but is quite logical: 6:Kg7? Ke6! allowing Bg6 or 6:Kh8 Ke5 7:Kg7 Ke6. Here, one can afford to let Bg6 play because Kd6 is not in a situation to support this B in the next move.
Among the 5 candidate moves a4, axb, Kf3, Kg4 and Rf3, only one is winning. Which one, and how ?
I insist that if this position seems inaccessible to the uninformed amateur, it is a misconception and the reader who would like to be led there is sure to come away enchanted.
** Helpmate : The Ws and Bs cooperate to achieve the required goal. Here, the Bs start and help the second W move to make mate.
** Kobul Kings: When a piece is captured, the king of his colour takes the march on that piece until another piece is captured.
** Take&Make: Pieces normally make moves without a capture. However, when a piece captures it must make a move according to the captured piece's movement. A capture is only possible if the associated move is possible. This will be illustrated in the explanation of the first solution.
** Anti Andernach: When a piece (except a K) plays, if it does not make a capture it changes colour.
** Nightrider (noted NI): This is a piece that plays as many moves of N as it wants, but all the steps must be in exactly the same direction. For example, the NIb5 can play c7, d6, f7, h8, d4, f3, h2, c3, d1 and a3.
To checkmate, one or more B-pieces will appear thanks to the Anti Andernach rule.
And the bK will have to be locked in a suitable cage: the Take&Make rule will be used once to make it travel and the Kobul Kings rule will be used to give it a mode of movement adapted to its cage.
Let's look at this in more detail:
Add a comment