|
< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 4 OF 4 ·
Later Kibitzing> |
| Jul-20-08 | | Artar1: 72. Bg4 sets up a side-row mate. If ...hxg4, then Rh7#. 72...Bb6 is the only defense, threatening Rxf2 and the possibility of a perpetual-check draw. 73.Rxb6 eliminates the draw possibility and puts Black a piece down. Yeah! 73...hxg4 restores the material balance.
74. hxg4! pins the Black king to the h-file, setting up a possible side-row mate. Yeah! 74...Rb2! Ahhhh! &%$#$%^! I missed this defensive play for Black. Okay, so I'm biased! Oh, the agony of defeat! The rest you already know. Great puzzle.
|
|
| Jul-20-08 | | Lutwidge: OK, I take back my quibble about White's moves being easy to find in light of 74. fxg4(!). "Insane" is right. :) |
|
| Jul-20-08 | | 234: Saturday puzzle Jul-19-08 <25. ...?> Kotronias vs Kramnik, 1992 |
|
| Jul-20-08 | | Some call me Tim: Insane because of the stalemating options but I tend to agree that 74...Rc2 will draw with correct play. Anyone have a refutation? As pointed out by <JG27Pyth> if 75. Rc6 Rc1 76. Kh2 Rc3 seems to force 77. Kg2 and then ...Rc1 is back to square one. |
|
| Jul-20-08 | | TheaN: 6/7
Got the ideas of 72.Bg4 Bb6 and 73.hxg4 keeping the mate threats, but I had to work out Rc6 with a minor edge on the board it seems (would've Rb2 surprised Yates... don't think it did). Half points for Saturday and Sunday; not too bad for my doing. |
|
| Jul-20-08 | | Salaskan: Incredibly easy. Can't believe I solved a Sunday puzzle. The black king has no flight squares, so Bg4 is immediately obvious, threatening Rh7 and mate next move. Playing Rh7 first fails because black can create a flight square with g4; the bishop blocks this pawn move. I hadn't seen the defence by black, Bb6, which threats perpetual check with Rxf2+, so white must exchange bishops, but after this, it's easy to win. I wonder, though, why didn't white capture immediately on d6 at move 75? |
|
| Jul-20-08 | | mworld: these insane puzzles boggle me. This one more so than usual. I thought bg4 led to a draw...and it seems that it does....so why is that the right answer?? were we looking for a draw here? |
|
| Jul-20-08 | | GoldenKnight: I actually thought this was rather obvious. White's and Black's first moves were obvious, then all White had to do was maneuver into a position where Black had to exchange rooks in such a way as to free one of his pawns, thus not allowing stalemate. Got it quickly here and could have done it OTB. Really easy for a Sunday. |
|
| Jul-20-08 | | Manic: <patzer2: The exchange of posts between <tallinn> and <manic> is interesting in pointing out the winning continuation against the more difficult defense 74...Rc2!> I think you should correct the wording. It should be "pointing out that 74...Rc2! draws" rather than "the winning comtinuation". Good analysis by <tallinn>. |
|
| Jul-21-08 | | Dr. J: <Manic: After 74.hxg4 Rc2 75.Rc6 Rc1 76.Kh2 Rc2 77.Kg1 and black's rook must move off the c-file, say to a2. Then 78.Kf1 now d6 drops.> Not so, I think. Black can resume checking: 78 ... Ra1+ 79 Ke2 Ra2+ and I don't see how White can escape check without losing the f-pawns or restoring the stalemate position (by moving K-...-g2). At the same time I was puzzled why Manic didn't play the "obvious" 78 Rxd6 since 78 ... R-a6 fails. But this is refuted by 78 ,,, Ra1+ 79 Kg2 Ra6 draw! So this seems to show 74 fxg4 is the only way to win (OR DOES IT???) Like a lot of people I was pleased I saw the obvious Bg4 but seriously underestimated the complexity of the resulting situation. So in conclusion ... (next post) |
|
| Jul-21-08 | | Dr. J: To all who claimed to have solved this problem "easily" because "Bg4 is obvious", I point out, in keeping with the Kipling theme above: "If you can keep your head when all about you are losing theirs, then you don't understand the gravity of the situation." |
|
Jul-21-08
 | | kevin86: A brilliant 64th move! The bishop,of course,is immune and,black must simplify-leading to a lost pawn ending. |
|
Jul-22-08
 | | Pawn and Two: <kevin86: A brilliant 64th move! The bishop, of course, is immune and, black must simplify-leading to a lost pawn ending.> The position was a draw after 64.Kg2, and remained so until Black's error, 71...Rd2?. Black missed the drawing move 71...Be1!. Several people have pointed out that White's position is winning after 74.fxg4!, but after the move played, 74.hxg4?, Black could have drawn by playing 74...Rc2!. |
|
Jul-23-08
 | | patzer2: <manic> <It should be "pointing out that 74...Rc2! draws"> Good point! I guess the best defense to 74...Rc2! = is to avoid it with White's winning improvement 74. fxg4!  . |
|
Sep-20-10
 | | GrahamClayton: This game was played in the 9th round of the tournament. After a good start, Rubinstein collapsed in the remainder of the tournament after this loss. |
|
| Jun-17-12 | | Howard: The late Larry Evans ran 2-3 letters in his monthly Chess Life and Review (as it was called back then) column back in 1975-6, regarding this endgame. It appeared (not surprisingly) in Fine's Basic Chess Endings, and the analysis in that book was not airtight. |
|
| Jun-17-12 | | Howard: Granted, Rubenstein pretty much collapsed in this tournament upon losing to Yates. On the other hand, he came in second in the Baden-Baden tournament that same year. Alekhine took clear first in that one. |
|
| Jun-17-12 | | Howard: To throw in yet another comment.....it has been said that Yates was actually one of the most feared players in the world back in his heydey despite the fact that he was probably never in the world's top ten. Despite some medicore--not to mention poor--tournament results, he could beat almost anyone on a good day! He had some tournaments where he did poorly.....but had the consolation of beating 1-2 of the top finishers. |
|
| Apr-25-15 | | Howard: This should probably be a GOTD, judging from the number of comments, plus the complexity of the endgame. |
|
| Oct-06-17 | | Howard: I'm probably putting egg on my face, but it turns out that the previous comments that I'd made on this game, may have actually been for a DIFFERENT game !! Who has a copy of the December, 1974 issue of Chess Life & Review? Or who can tell us what game example #448 was in Fine's BCE ?! I think I goofed !!! |
|
| Oct-07-17 | | Retireborn: In my 1972 reprint of Fine, this game is 446, and 448 is a Keres-Romanovsky 1939 game. |
|
| Oct-07-17 | | Retireborn: Fine missed that 74.hxg4 was a blunder throwing away the win, as noted by the kibitzers below. Perhaps that was what Larry Evans was referring to. |
|
| Oct-08-17 | | Howard: And I had the wrong game all this time !
Thanks, Retireborn !
At any rate, if 74.hxg4 should have blown the win, then where did Black subsequently go wrong? |
|
Oct-08-17
 | | beatgiant: <Howard>
Have you already tried reading all the previous kibitzing above? |
|
| Oct-08-17 | | Howard: Oops! Should have read it all first. You do, indeed, have a point! I just feel stultified about getting this game mixed up with another one! |
|
 |
|
|
< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 4 OF 4 ·
Later Kibitzing> |
Kibitzing
