Position after 14…Bb4
Mamedyarov, Shakhriyar – Sokolov, Ivan
Essent chess tournament, Hoogeveen, 2006
1.d4 d5 2.c4 c6 3.e3 Bf5 4.Nc3 e6 5.Nf3 Nd7 6.Bd3 Bxd3 7.Qxd3 Ngf6 8.0-0 Be7 9.e4 0-0 10.cxd5 exd5 11.exd5 cxd5 12.Ne5 Bd6 13.Re1 Re8 14.Bf4 Bb4 15.Re2 Qa5 16.Nd1 (White is slightly better. But Black should hold unless Sokolov falters again at around time control.) 16…Nf8 17.Ne3 Ng6 18.Nxg6 hxg6 19.a3 Rac8 20.Be5 Nd7 21.Qb3 (The position is about even.) 21…Qa6 22.Rc2 Rxc2 23.Nxc2 Bf8 24.Bg3 (The position is still equal.) 24…Qb6 25.Qc3 Nf6 26.f3 Re6 27.Ne3 Rc6 28.Qd2 Qb3 29.Rc1 Rxc1+ 30.Qxc1 Qd3 31.Be5 Nd7 32.Qc3 Nxe5 33.dxe5 Qxc3 34.bxc3 Bc5 35.Kf2 d4 36.cxd4 Bxd4 37.f4 b5 38.Ke2 Bc5 39.Nc2 Kf8 40.Kd3 a5 41.Ke4 Bg1 42.h3 Ke7 43.Kd5 Kd7 44.g4 Bf2 45.Nd4 Bxd4 46.Kxd4 Kc6 47.h4 b4 48.axb4 axb4 49.Kc4 b3 50.Kxb3 Kd5 51.g5 Ke6 52.Kc4 Ke7 (Mamedyarov pulled off a miracle. This is not Sokolov’s tournament. It should be a clear win for White now.) 53.Kb5 f6 54.gxf6+ gxf6 55.Kc5 Ke6 56.Kd4 Kd7 57.Kd5 Ke7 58.e6 Kd8 59.Kd6 Ke8 60.e7 1-0
Mamedyarov did not pull off a miracle. Sokolov blundered several times in the endgame. ~kt
“52.Kc4 Ke7 (… It should be a clear win for White now.)”
Actually, this position is drawn, but Sokolov blundered a few moves later.
Why black didn’t play the natural 52….Kf5 gaining the f4 pawn?
52…Kf5 53.h5! followed by h6…
one move earlier, 51…Ke4 52.h5! ouch
Engineless Bill Brock
Chicago
what about move 38 for black. Was that black’s best move? Was he lost after that move? What about move 46 for black?
I liked this game.
Has anyone noticed that the King and Pawn ending was always drawn? After 50 Kxb3 Kd5 51 g5(!) Ke6 52 Kc4 Ke7, I think Mamedyarov already saw the problem and took an extra chance with 53 Kb5!?, when Black would have been fine with 53…Ke6 54 Kc6/b6 f6!, but 54 Kc5 returns to the main line. Then 54…Ke7 55 Kd5 is the same position White could have had with 53 Kd5, so I’ll continue with 55…Kd7. Now White has
(a) 56 e6+ fxe6+ 57 Ke5 Ke7 There is no Zugzwang here, even Black to move is fine with …Kd7.
(b) 56 Kd4 Ke6 (Black doesn’t even need to care about possible triangulations; 56…Ke7 is fine too) 57 Ke4 Ke7! (but 57…Kd7? 58 f5!+- he does care about!), when White has:
(b1) 58 f5 gxf5+ 59 Kxf5 g6+! (the point of 57…Ke7 is covering f6) 60 Kf4 Ke6 (again, no triangulation worry) 61 Ke4 Ke7! and White has nothing better than 62 e6+ fxe6+ 63 Ke5 Ke7 drawing as in (a).
[Note also that here 61…Kd7?! is careless for a different reason: 62 Kd5 Ke7 63 e6! fxe6 64 Ke5 with a Zugzwang, but not fatal after 64…Kf7 65 Kd6 e5! 66 Kxe5 Ke7, when Black has the opposition, the same triangle freedoms f7,e7,e6 opposite White’s e5,e4,f4, the ability to come in via f5 if WK goes queenside, and the fact that WK-on-g4, BK-on-f7 is OK with either side to move.]
(b2) 58 Kf3 Ke6 59 Kg4 Ke7 60 h5 gxh5+ 61 Kxh5 Ke6 and now:
(b21) 62 g6 f6! 63 exf6 Kxf6 and White loses the g-pawn.
(b22) 62 Kh4 g6! 63 Kg4 and now Black has a good choice:
I. 63…Ke7 64 f5 gxf5 65 Kxf5 Ke8! 66 Kf6 Kf8= is a classic case of “bend but don’t break”. If White hadn’t traded the pawns on h4 and g6 then White would win by e6, but with just the one pawn left it’s a draw.
II. 63…Kd7 64 Kf3 Ke7 65 Ke3 Kd7 66 Kd3 Ke7 67 Kd4 is a case of triangulation, since Black must avoid 67…Kd7? 68 Kd5 Ke7 69 e6! fxe6+ 70 Ke5 and this time Black has no escape as in the footnote to line (b1). But the opposition White angled for with 67…Ke6 68 Ke4 is nothing after 68…Ke7! 69 f5 gxf5+ 70 Kxf5 Ke8! as in the “bend-but-don’t-break” line above.
III. 63…Kd5 64 Kf3 Kd4 65 Kf2 Ke4 66 Kg3 Kd5! (not 66…Ke3? when loss of contact with the e5-pawn allows 67 f5! queening) and White does not even get to make Black “bend”!
However, White can cut out option III. by playing:
(b23) 62 Kg4 g6! 63 Kf3, and now Black must “bend” because 63…Kf5!? 64 Ke3 Kg4? (prudent retreat draws as above) loses to 65 Ke4 Kh5 (or 65…Kh4 66 Kf3 Kh5 (66…Kh3 67 f5! queening) 67 Kg3! and Black is trapped) 66 Kd5 Kg4 67 e6! fxe6+ 68 Kxe6 Kxf4 69 Kf6. So 63…Kd5 64 Ke3 Ke6 65 Ke4, but as in line (b22) I & II this doesn’t bring home the prize!
The Essent site still says that the pawn ending was lost http://www.essentchess.nl/index2006.htm (“Een afwikkeling leidde uiteindelijk tot een …. verloren pionneneindspel voor hem.”—A (something) made a…lost pawn ending for him.) Nor has anyone commented here or at the Chess Ninja message boards, and I haven’t seen it at a news site…anyway, I thought people would appreciate a full rendition of this analysis.
kwregan is not your ordinary blog kibitzer:
http://www.buffalo.edu/reporter/vol28/vol28n15/n3.html
Thanks for the commentary!
Bill Brock
Chicago
wow–very beautiful analysis
Bill Brock
Chicago
Correction of the previous line: if 52….Kf5 53.h5?! gxh5 54.Kd5 Kxf4=
some analyzes http://vaatleja.blog-city.com
After that high-level analysis, let me correct my gross error upthread: 52…Kf5 does lose, but not because of 53.h5? but rather 53.Kd5 Kxf4 54.Kd6. If Black hangs around the e-pawn, White will munch & promote the g-pawn.
Bill Brock
Chicago
Actually, Frederic Friedel at Chessbase points out that my analysis has an error too! Not an essential one, but a case where I made some moves in my head between two positions that I did check with Fritz 9, but didn’t check the transition. Since it’s a beautiful shot, I’ll leave it as a puzzle.
Your hint is to take an idea I related in my second post, and apply it at the weak point of my first one! And for a more important version, ask yourself how you defend against the “more natural” 53 Kd4(!)—? Whether playing thru my lines on a computer engine and finding it that way is “fair” is up to you…meanwhile, I have to do the same to check the rest! 🙂