Position after 53…Kxh4
Do you know how to hold this position as White? This is an actual game between GM Onischuk and GM Dominguez in round 6 in Biel.
[White “GM Onischuk”]
[Black “GM Dominguez”]
1. d4 Nf6 2. c4 g6 3. Nc3 d5 4. Nf3 Bg7 5. Qb3 dxc4 6. Qxc4 O-O 7. e4 a6 8. Be2
b5 9. Qb3 c5 10. dxc5 Bb7 11. e5 Nfd7 12. Be3 e6 13. Rd1 Qc7 14. O-O Nxc5 15.
Qa3 Ncd7 16. Qe7 Rc8 17. Ng5 Nf8 18. Qxc7 Rxc7 19. f4 h6 20. Nf3 Nc6 21. Nd4 g5
22. Nxc6 Bxc6 23. fxg5 hxg5 24. Bxg5 Bxe5 25. Bf3 Rac8 26. Bxc6 Rxc6 27. Bf6
Bxf6 28. Rxf6 Rc4 29. a3 Kg7 30. Rf2 f5 31. Rd6 R8c6 32. Rxc6 Rxc6 33. g4 fxg4
34. Rg2 Ng6 35. Rxg4 Kf6 36. Kf2 Ne5 37. Rf4+ Kg6 38. Ke2 Nc4 39. Ne4 Nxb2 40.
h4 Nc4 41. Rf6+ Kh5 42. Ng5 Nxa3 43. Nxe6 Rc2+ 44. Kd3 b4 45. Rf5+ Kg6 46. Rc5
Rf2 47. Nd4 b3 48. Nxb3 Rf3+ 49. Ke4 Rxb3 50. Rc6+ Kh5 51. Rxa6 Nc4 52. Ra8
Nd2+ 53. Kd4 Kxh4 54. Rg8 Nf3+ 55. Kc4 Rb1 56. Kd5 Ng5 57. Ke5 Kg4 58. Kd4 Rd1+
59. Ke5 Re1+ 60. Kd5 Re7 61. Kd4 Kf5 62. Rf8+ Nf7 63. Ra8 Kf4 64. Rf8 Rd7+ 65.
Kc5 Ke4 66. Ra8 Rc7+ 67. Kb4 Kd4 68. Kb3 Ne5 69. Rd8+ Nd7 70. Kb2 Kd3 71. Rh8
Rb7+ 72. Kc1 Nc5 73. Rh3+ Kd4 74. Kc2 Rc7 75. Rh4+ Ne4+ 76. Kb3 Rc8 77. Kb2 Rg8
78. Kb3 Rg2 79. Kb4 Rb2+ 80. Ka3 Rb8 81. Ka4 Kd5 82. Ka3 Nc5 83. Ka2 Ne6 84.
Ka3 Nd4 85. Rh7 Rb6 86. Ka2 Kc4 87. Rc7+ Kd3 88. Rd7?? Kc2 89. Ka3 Nc6 90. Ka4
Rb4+ 91. Ka3 Rb5 {Black wins} 0-1
Click here to replay the game.
The great american lost.
What a pity!
I don’t know but I’m not unhappy as it seems that neither does Onischuk…
Pardon?
Onischuk lost. Observers on icc were complaining why did black play that ending out it was drawn, but ofcourse it is hard at the end of a long game sometimes to defend these endgames.
Dominguez found a chink in Onischuk’s endgame technique. Just like Fischer, relentless.
‘Observers on icc were complaining why did black play that ending out it was drawn’
Observers on ICC are amateur chess parasites. Who cares what they say.
Both GMs are obviously fake GMs and do not have any respect of mine.
You wouldn’t know how to hold it either. Only Kasparov memorized everything, all other GrandMasters and bloggers are weaklings. How dare anyone comments on games of players rated more than them??
The question is not how to hold it but how to lose it an Onischuk did well here. 🙂
Endgames KRN vs. KR (and KRB vs KR) are to known hard to play for either side (the weaker side has to be careful of not making to big mistakes while the stronger side must find these mistakes and make the best out of it) but if I remember correctly the bishop (KRB) gives better chances of failing for the weaker side than playing against the knight (KRN).
In both cases it is highly supposed to the stronger side to try winning the game as she can not lose it – so why should Dominguez give this game drawn before the 50 moves rule encounters?
0:1 – good fighting will by Domiguez, a pity for Onischuk but an exciting end for both of them.
Best wishes
Jochen
I’m sorry to say but Onischuk played this game not to lose and that’s why he lost one or two pawns in the first place.
His play tends to be a bit negative, mainly towards draw against top players.
This is the reason he hardly win against the top. His games aren’t very attractive.
Anon 6:53
Take your own advice.
Does anyone know why Polgars invited Anand to their place when he was young
According to Mig, http://www.chessninja.com/dailydirt/ …
“Onischuk gained the dubious honor of being the first elite player to lose R+N vs R in classical play since the famous loss by Judit Polgar against Kasparov at Dos Hermanas in 1996. That one is always trotted out to show that drawing this ending is not trivial. It’s certainly not as tough as R+B vs R and it is almost always drawn at the GM level. There are a few blitz wins and a couple of losses on time in still-drawn positions, but before you say it’s easy you should try to hold out for 50 moves against a skilled opponent. I won’t say “against your computer” because many tablebase-using programs don’t distinguish between drawn lines and are apt to throw away the extra knight because they see it’s drawn anyway. A strong human can play it for tricks and traps. Dominguez showed more pluck than the only stronger Cuban chessplayer in history, Jose Raul Capablanca. In the spectacular 22nd game of the 1927 Alekhine-Capablanca WCh match the tiring Capa only played a dozen moves with the extra knight before agreeing the draw. This went uncommented by Alekhine, who only said it should have been drawn 20 moves earlier.”
… great chess commentary.
So let us say:
Onischuk is not a loser, is he?
Me too, if the opponent is much stronger, he beats me. If not, so it’s drawn.
Dominguez would have beaten even me…
okay
Well depends- you might just not fall for the tactic at the end by say simply keeping the rook further out (say on the h-file) allowing side checks which Onischuk didn’t have being on the very next file.
I would have been very upset and embarrassed to lose that way and I am 600 lower rated than Onischuk.
It was at the end of a long game but I dispute that I am any worse than Onischuk when it comes to such endgame position as RN v R, by then it just becomes whether you can think clearly.
sorry more like 500 lower- and 400 lower if I played more.
Ofcourse even if some of us might do as well or better than Onischuk in that endgame, bearing in mind how tired he was, we would likely not play well enough to reach that endgame in the first place. That is where trhe 400 points or whatever comes in.
After 53…Kxh4, the pure R-RN was on the board. Onischuk defended correctly for more than 30 moves. But then, 88.Rc7-d7 was the mistake, as already identified. For example, 88.Rc8 held the draw (and many other moves).
8/3R4/1r6/8/3n4/3k4/K7/8 b – – 0 88
After 88…Kc2, 89.Rc7+ fails because 89…Nc6 controls both a7 and b4, so 90.Ka3 would not escape from the mate threat.
After 88.Rd7, Dominguez Perez found three “single winning” moves in a row.
These are the results from analysis supported by endgame databases.
He defended correctly in terms of not losing until then, but maybe not neccessarily correctly in allowing his opponent to get close to a win- maybe he could have put up more resistance to his king going to the edge or something.
His opponent made a lot of progress before the blunder- that should be noted- it wasn’t as if he was so close to losing at the beginning of the process.
Yes… I think you made an important remark. This type of progress is something which an endgame database cannot evaluate. So, more correct would be something like: For more than 30 moves, Onischuk didn’t make a losing move.
Generally, I want to avoid the word “blunder” if I compare a human’s moves to a perfect endgame database, although relative to Grandmaster level, it is probably ok in this case of Rd7.
Fighting chess is what I respect…play it out and try to get your opponent to make a mistake…you must prove yourself.
600 points lower lol 400 to 500 IF you played more come on tool stop kidding yourself. You are a fish, you should not be commenting on Onischuks ability. So what he lost a game in a drawn ending. Is that better or worse than losing on move 10? A loss is a loss plain and simple.
It is difficult to defend. Judith Polgar lost a similar endgame to Kasparov in 1996, blundering in a theoretically drawn position.
Well his losing move was quite a blunder- he had to be careful placing his rook to where there were no side checks as in the next column. The winning tactic at the end played itself- needed no thought.
anon 5:19
you are right anyone below 2400 is just a fish compared to Onischuk, but his point was how weak he was (say 2200) and still would expect to draw that endgame.