|
< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 2 OF 3 ·
Later Kibitzing> |
Oct-29-03
 | | Eggman: <aulero>Basic Chess Endings says "Queen and pawn vs Queen wins only with a Bishop pawn or center pawn on the seventh. Black's King should be as far as possible from the Pawn. A bad King position may cost Black the game in otherwise drawn positions." In the Botvinnik-Minov game it was (I would think) a mistake for Black to play his King to the edge, thus later allowing mating threats. In any event in the Shirov-Timman game Black does not need to allow this ending. |
|
| Oct-29-03 | | MoonlitKnight: I presented the problem to our number-crunching companion Fritz, and the German gave the following answer: 49...♔d6 50.h4 ♔xc6 51.f5 ♔d6 52.f6 ♔d7 53.♔f2 ♔d8 54.♔g3 ♔e8 55.♔f4 ♔d7 56.♔g4 ♔e8 57.h5 ♔f7 58.h6 c6. The position is a dead draw, even though our silicon friend did not understand it and evaluated the position +1.90. 20 moves later, the position had not changed and the stupid software still gave a +1.06 evaluation. Computers... |
|
| Oct-29-03 | | MoonlitKnight: This must have been blitz or something? |
|
Oct-29-03
| | Eggman: <Chessgames.com> It's probably to late to change this, but I wish to heck your database indicated whether a game was played at a classical time control or not. <MK> Timman losing on time in active / blitz game would make sense. If there is a win here, I have to say in all modesty that I almost certainly would have been able to find it. I couldn't. |
|
Oct-30-03
 | | Open Defence: This was played at Hoogvens in 1996 according to the Informator it must have been in classic time control (i wish i could buy back issues!) Incidentally Shirov in that article claimed Black resigned because of 50h4 Kxc6 51 f5 Kd6 52f6 hehehee |
|
| Oct-30-03 | | MoonlitKnight: If that is true, we have busted a super-GM. I know Shirov has won some crazy endgames in seemingly simple positions, but there really is no win here. |
|
| Oct-30-03 | | drukenknight: Moonlit: we are busting these guys every day here. Did you see the Spassky/Fischer 1966 game we were talking about the other day? Havent you realized yet what a silly game chess really is and these GMs are trying to convince you otherwise? |
|
| Nov-02-03 | | AdrianP: "Black resigned in view of the obvious 49...Kd6 50 h4 Kxc6 51 f5 Kd6 (51...gxf5 52 h5 Kd6 53 g6 hxg6 54 h6 and wins) 52 f6 and White wins easily. It's strange that I won exactly the same pawn ending against Akopian (Oakham 1992) with the only difference that pawns were on the queenside in that game. [AS - The real difference from that game is in fact that here Black has a pawn on c7. Thus when White's king is on c6 Black puts his to d8 and there is no zugzwang since White's pawn is already on h4 and there is no way to give Black the turn. Therefore Timman simply resigned in a drawn position. This draw was discovered by an amateur from Switzerland.]" (Fire on Board, Shirov). I take it that the text is the original from the first print of Fire on Board and the square bracketed bit is Shirov's later errandum/addendum. So it looks like <Open Defence> was right, that Timman's biggest mistake in this game was to resign a drawn position...! |
|
| Nov-02-03 | | drukenknight: Well gee, I challenged it first.
Hey now we ought to find that Shirov/Akopian game and see if we can save that one! |
|
| Nov-02-03 | | AdrianP: <dk> Sorry for mis-attributing the credit...! Here's the Akopian game Shirov vs Akopian, 1992 |
|
Nov-02-03
| | Eggman: Indeed it's a draw! So I was right! ;)
Thanks for that, AdrianP. |
|
Nov-03-03
| | Open Defence: dk no offence but I think I kibitzed about this first saying that my analysis indicated a draw, and that I wanted to check if my analysis was right.......... |
|
| Nov-03-03 | | drukenknight: Yes you are right, some of these threads you just join onto and you forget how it all started. Cyph, you had hallucinated on move 57 Right? Aulero had taken the line some and so had I, but you rejected my move 57 as losing. You had obviously worked on the problem before what exactly happend to your analysis on 57? I didnt play out the line but just in words what was the situation on the board after? >>>The problem was that after 57. Kb4, I hallucinated: 57.- Ke6 58. Kc5 Kd7 59. Kb6 Kd6 60. Kb7 c5?? 61. Kc8 |
|
| Nov-03-03 | | Cyphelium: Well, if you play it through you'll understand. I just calculated the line when black rushes the c-pawn (60.- c5??) and saw that this was winning for white. When I tried to analyse with a board later on, I realised that this was a stupid oversight of mine as black doesn't have to move the c-pawn. That's all. |
|
| Nov-03-03 | | AdrianP: So which one of you lot is the <amateur from Switzerland> mentioned by Shirov himself...! ;-) |
|
Nov-03-03
| | Eggman: I must say it absolutely amazes me that Timman could resign in a drawn position (especially such a basic one) and it is five times as amazing that Shirov would continue to think that the position was drawn, even after analyzing the game! I can scarcely even recall another instance of a super-GM resigning a drawn position, let alone such a simple one! Amazing! |
|
| Nov-03-03 | | drukenknight: Eggie this stuff happens all the time. You are just too enamored with these guys. |
|
Nov-03-03
| | Eggman: <Eggie this stuff happens all the time. You are just too enamored with these guys.> "This stuff" being a GM resigning a drawn position? Example? |
|
| Nov-03-03 | | Benjamin Lau: Kramnik vs Deep Fritz, 2002
Deep Blue vs Kasparov, 1997
These two are probably the most famous examples, but there are many more. I remember some involving Karpov, Anand, and Shirov as well. |
|
| Nov-03-03 | | Benjamin Lau: In the two games I mentioned though, the draws are very difficult to see, more difficult than in this game. |
|
| Nov-03-03 | | drukenknight: Eggman: we have had two from Timman this week including this: Timman vs Nunn, 1982 |
|
| Nov-03-03 | | drukenknight: And did you see this one a few days ago:
Spassky vs Fischer, 1966 |
|
Nov-04-03
| | Eggman: <Timman vs Nunn, 1982 ... Spassky vs Fischer, 1966> No, Drukenknight, those are examples of losing in a drawn position, not resigning in a drawn position. Big difference. |
|
| Nov-05-03 | | drukenknight: maybe you can show us the win. |
|
Nov-05-03
| | Eggman: DK, I'm not sure why Honza's Oct 24 analysis regarding the Timman vs Nunn, 1982 game doesn't satisfy you, and as to the Spassky vs Fischer, 1966 game, I'll look at it when I get the chance. |
|
 |
|
|
< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 2 OF 3 ·
Later Kibitzing> |
Kibitzing
sac: 26.Ba5