The Chess Mind

By Dennis Monokroussos.
This is a blog for chess fans by a chess fan, one who loves the beauty of the game and wants to share it with those who are like-minded.
Yet the chess mind is not only a chess mind, and other topics, such as philosophy, may appear from time to time. All material copyrighted.
Timman-Berg: A Study-like Conclusion
In the game Jan Timman-Emanuel Berg, 14th Sigeman & Co. 2006 (played this past Friday), the players reached this position after Black's 65th move:



White to move and win. (Remember, R + N vs. R is a draw except in special circumstances, none of which will apply here.) When you think you've got it worked out, click here for the whole game and the solution (and don't forget to check out the second, bonus game as well).
Posted by Dennis Monokroussos on Sunday April 30, 2006 at 3:24am
Jon Jacobs (mail) (www):
Dennis, Timman's solution is clearly better, and I am looking at this without the ability to move pieces so I probably am missing something, but in trying to solve it I came up with what may be a dual solution. (Of course since this was an actual game rather than a "real" study, it doesn't matter, especailly since the "solution" played in the actual game is quicker and clearer than my "dual.")

Here it is: 1.Nf5 Rg8 2.g7 b3 3.Rf8 b2 4.Rxg8 b1(Q) 5.Ng3+ Ke3 (otherwise White removes his R from the queening square with check and then promotes) 6.Rf8, and it looks to me like Black can give no more than a single check either on the 2nd rank or on g7, before White queens his pawn and wins with his extra material.
5.1.2006 2:35pm
Dennis Monokroussos:
Jon, it looks like you're right. (Your idea is similar to the prosaic option in the main line: 1.Rf7 b3 2.Rxg7 b2 and now not 3.Nd5 but 3.Rf7 b1Q 4.g7.) I simply trusted my software (mistakenly); in fact, my software's treatment of the position is just the darndest thing. Right now I have the position after 1.Nf5 running on Fritz 9, and it just spits out 1...Rg8 0.00 on me, no matter how long it runs. (It's at depth 16 right now.) But the instant I enter 1...Rg8 on the board, it IMMEDIATELY proclaims White's decisive advantage! (And it does this when 1.Nf5 is at much shorter depths, in case anyone thinks letting it go to depth 17 would have made the difference.

I tried this with other engines too: Hiarcs 10, Fruit and Rybka, and they all did the same thing. That led me to think that it had something to do with the way tablebases are accessed, but then I switched on my favorite engine brand, Shredder, and it not only saw that 1.Nf5 won before I let it see 1...Rg8, it even saw 1.Nf5 as a winner (along with 1.Rf7) from the diagram position above. (I sure hope Shredder 10 comes out soon!)

At any rate, White wins, but just by a hair, after 1.Nf5 Rg8 2.g7 b3 3.Rf8 Rxg7 4.Nxg7 Kd3 5.Ne6! b2 6.Nc5+!, as the knight will be able to give itself up for the passed pawn (6...Kc2 7.Rf2+). So you're right, Jon, and thanks for accidentally leading me to discover something odd about chess engines!
5.1.2006 4:24pm
Jon Jacobs (mail) (www):
Dennis, that's really strange. I'm gonna try it with my own software (Fritz8). Hard to believe. Maybe that's why you seem to have such little difficulty in your lectures coming up with improvements over what the computers recommend! :))
5.1.2006 9:20pm
Jon Jacobs (mail) (www):
My Fritz8 running on a 3 ghz Pentium 4 with 512 MB RAM, immediately gives 1.Rf7 as its first choice and 1.Nf5 Rxg6+ as its second choice. It scores this second alternative at +6.00, which means it sees right away that 1...Rg8 2.g7 is winning for White, leading to a score greater than +6.00.
I don't remember if I ever optimized Fritz's hash tables for my machine; I think I did, using the instructions given in Krongard's How to Use Computers to Improve Your Chess.
5.1.2006 9:32pm
Chuckles:
Dennis, I think your Fritz is giving 0.00 because 66.Nf5 is a repetition of the position after 64.Nf5. I've seen that happen before, where the eval goes to zero when the players are repeating, even though one player can avoid the repetition with some advantage.
5.2.2006 11:51am
Dennis Monokroussos:
Very observant, Chuckles - your diagnosis is spot on. It's something I've noticed too, but as I was always starting the analysis from the point where Timman commenced his combination, I was completely oblivious! Thanks for straightening that out.

Jon: I remember seeing that book in the stores once upon a time, and thought that I knew too much of what was in the book to justify its purchase. If you can offer a concise summary of hash table optimization, however, that might prove useful to the readers of this blog - myself included!
5.2.2006 11:37pm