The Chess Mind

A few posts ago, I presented the concluding moves of a recent pawn ending, challenging the reader to find the mistakes - if any. When I first saw this ending, I understood everything just about immediately; not because I'm so bright or because of my new but sadly unofficial IM title, but because I've had almost exactly the same ending! So if you want a (big) hint, have a look here.

Or are there any errors at all? Click here for your starting position and the game's remaining moves. I'll offer a hint in a few days; meanwhile, keep your chess engines off! (Reminder: if you think you have the solution, please do not post it, or make statements that might provide a hint, in the comments section. You're welcome to use the Contact link to confirm your solution privately, however.)

In this post, I presented two positions where the side with a knight was able to achieve a draw against the stronger side's bishop, thanks to the power of the blockade. This time, our task is the opposite. It looks as if the side with the knight has an impenetrable line of defense, but looks can be deceiving.



White to move; (how) can he win?

Some time ago, I offered my readers two knight vs. bishop positions as homework. In both cases, the side with the knight stood worse, but had the opportunity (so I claimed) to draw by constructing a blockade on the squares opposite to that of the bishop. The first position was the easier one (though not easy enough, apparently!), and now it's time for the harder one.

Here is our starting position



and when you're ready for the solution, click here.

A few days ago, I offered two knight vs. bishop endings for the readers' endgame practice. In both cases, the knight side has the worst of it but, with best play, can save the game by constructing an imbreachable blockade. The first position is easier, so I'll present the answer to that one now, allowing those needing a little help with the second a bit more time and perhaps a clearer idea of what a solution might look like.



There's the problem (again, White to move and draw), and when you're ready to check your analysis or to see what I've produced, click here.

According to the traditional reckoning, knights and bishops are equivalent: both are worth about three pawns, as beginners' books have taught us since the dawn of civilization. This oversimplification is useful when we take our first steps, but with a little experience under our belts, we quickly learn that reality is more complicated. Knights and bishops operate very differently, and depending on the circumstances, the value of one may greatly exceed the value of the other.

Elaborating those different circumstances is a book-length project, and as two such works already exist (Steve Mayer's Bishop vs. Knight: The Verdict, and Jan Timman's recent Power Chess with Pieces), I'll leave further exploration up to my readers. Instead, we'll have a look at one particular theme: the knight as blockader against a bishop and pawns all on the same color squares. (You might think of it as an opposite-colored bishop ending, but with a knight.)

Those hoping for a lecture will have to wait; this lesson begins with the reader. Your homework is to examine the following positions - it's White to move in both cases - and attempt to prove a draw. The first is fairly easy and the second a bit tougher, but in the end, they come to just about the same thing.





Solutions will be given in a few days.

(A reminder: Please, for the benefit of other readers, do not leave comments with analysis or hints to the solution. If you are excited about your discoveries and want to let me know, you are welcome to do so - but please write via the "Contact" link. Also, though it should go without saying, using chess engines to discover the solution is counterproductive in the extreme!)

When I was a kid, I enjoyed thumbing through the Guinness Book of World Records. Like many, I was fascinated by the extremes of human existence and performance, and while I haven't given that work more than a cursory glance in nearly three decades, that curiosity hasn't entirely left me - especially not in the realm of chess. (For an extreme confirmation, take a look at this post from my earlier blog.)

Here, then, are two recent games: one very short, the other quite long, and both instructive. The first, the short one, shows that even very strong players - IMs and GMs - are not immune to getting miniaturized, while the second highlights the value of simple solutions.

Click here.

In his round 7 win over Rustam Kasimjanov (apparently, this is now his official name, as far as FIDE is concerned, a change that went into effect yesterday (Friday, for those of you in more westerly time zones)), Veselin Topalov won by slowly grinding his opponent into submission. It was very difficult to see just where Kasimjanov went wrong, but it looks like GM Karsten Müller, co-author of the very fine Fundamental Chess Endings, has done it (in Chess Today, issue 1795).

Before presenting a summary of his analysis, let's take a look at the position before the last move of the game:



The superficially obvious response to the check is 73.Kxg5, but this is a horrible blunder: Black plays 73...Re1 74.Kg6 Rg1+ and it's a trivial Philidor position-type draw, even without the e-pawn.

The right move - the move played - was 73.Kh5!, using Black's g-pawn as an "umbrella", preventing Black from raining checks upon the White king. Black resigned here, as there is no defense to White's plan of Kg6 + R_8+. For instance, 73...Rd4 74.Kg6 Rd8 75.Rh7 Kg8 76.f7+ Kf8 77.Rh8+ Ke7 78.Rxd8 and 79.f8(Q).

Ironically, it's the presence of the Black g-pawn that costs him the game, and so Müller's bright idea was to go back and find a way to lose the pawn and thus save the game! This is the key position:



Kasimjanov played 58...b4? and lost. The particularly assiduous among you are invited to work out an improvement; when you're ready to test your results or just want to see Müller's, click here.

In Ivanchuk Does it Again, we took a brief gander at Vassily Ivanchuk's startling loss on time from a position a club player would find impossible to lose, to say nothing of the number five player in the world. In that post, I offered a conjecture as to how he could allow the loss on time; in this post, I take a look at the position itself, which was in fact a win, and at least two different ways. Alas!

Regular readers of my blog know that I'm a fan of endgame studies, and for three reasons: aesthetic value, instructional value, and for their value in calculation practice.

Good study material isn't nearly as accessible as game or opening analysis, so when it's available on the web it's worth point out. Accordingly, here's a heads-up on a study competition celebrating the 75th birthday of GM, endgame doyen and study composer Pal Benko.

(Two notes. First, in the .pdf for the third-prize winner, the diagram header wrongly describes it as a win for White; it's a draw. Second, I strongly recommend downloading the .pgn instead of using the .pdfs, as the latter are very poorly written - some entries have tons of nested parentheses and chess diacritical marks that are mistranslated from the chess program.)