<al wazir> 46...Rc4 47.Bd6 Rc6 48.Kd4 and White wins the d-pawn; positionally, Black is lost: a rook move on the c-file is answered by Bc5 queening, while Rb6 and White Queens

Purdy says the ending is lost.

If 46. ... Rc4 47. Kd3 (this is Purdy's analysis) and then if d4 48. Bd6 Rc6 49. Kxd4 Rxd6+ 50. Kc5 Rd8 51. Kb6 Rc8 52. Kb7...

or if here 47. ... Kg6 84. Bd6 threatening Bc5.

It was important for White to play 45. h5+!

<morfishine> the cross pin was great as was the move 19. ... Nce5!

Purdy was probably lost if 24. ... Qc6 (Purdy's comment).

Objectively 19. ... Nce5 seems to be a mistake and the less imaginative 19. ... fxg4 was better with plenty of play.

One move not noted is 28...cxd6 (instead of 28...h5) controlling e5. Though White is up a pawn, he's down an exchange and so must make the Q+B battery work or he draws at best. For example, 28...cxd6 29.Qd4 Re5 30.Qxd6? can be answered by 30...Rxf5+ 31.gxf5 Qxf5+ 32.Kg2 Qf2+ 33.Kh1 Qf3+ and draw by perpetual

I finally got to the end position and it is, it seems, a clear win whatever Black does...

<
One move not noted is 28...cxd6 (instead of 28...h5) controlling e5. Though White is up a pawn, he's down an exchange and so must make the Q+B battery work or he draws at best. For example, 28...cxd6 29.Qd4 Re5 30.Qxd6? can be answered by 30...Rxf5+ 31.gxf5 Qxf5+ 32.Kg2 Qf2+ 33.Kh1 Qf3+ and draw by perpetual >

Yes, that's right but White has 30. Qf4 and White is better.

I looked at that sequence too: 28...Rxd6
29. Qe5 Rd3+ followed by 30...Rxc3 31.Qxc3 and thought this looks like a difficult ending for Black to hold; I guess it can't be worse than the actual outcome

FWIW: IMO, I wouldn't call routine analysis "cheating with the computer" unless you are trying to solve a problem like the POTD

I played in 2 NZ Corresp Champs and also two International Corresp events in the mid to late 80s, It is very absorbing but very very time consuming.

But if a youngster asked me (they never do, my grandson plays but he isn't big on chess: I have two others and one on the way! so I dont know if they will be interested...

I gained a lot from learning and playing chess and these days playing over games, solving problems etc

But there are many for whom chess can be quite terrible in its effects. Chess as an activity seems to foster an heirarchical thing which I think can be psychologically harmful.

So overall (unless the person was a real prodigy) I would dissuade a young person away from chess to say sailing boats, athletics, art, literature, music, stamp collecting.

It is necessary for the individual to learn also to feel good about themselves (I don't mean arrogance). Now people who have mastered that or have that are very fortunate and could well "take" the many downsides of playing professional chess.

As a hobby to complement other things it has it's place.

One promising young player over here stopped playing (I was told) because his mother "hates(d) chess": that is when they could be on holiday all together father and son were pouring over chess boards and so on.

Overall I see little benefit in playing chess for people such Bobby Fischer (he should have learned more things at school or taken more interest in his mother's left wing politics), whereas Smyslov, who WAS sane, had music as did Taimanov, Euwe maths and boxing at one stage...it will help Anand that he is widely educated...

Carlsen is clearly onto a good thing but what about in 6 to 10 years? He will be knocked over and we will forget him as people are forgetting how good Topalov, Kramnik, and Anand are. Kasparov wisely checked out early, Smyslov played on, Karpov also but he is quite laid back, plays bridge and collects stamps etc

But when I played in a simul against Spassky she was there and shouted out to everyone how boring chess was.

Now she had a point: we also used to go to art openings and art seemed to me, coupled with a certain wider social-philosophical implication than chess, to be more important than chess. And indeed nothing is so important as human interelationships (even if it is one's local community or whatever). Chess is a game.

It is ultimately trivia. It is not life.

Or is it? Is it a significant part of the intellectual-psychic appreciation of the complex beauty of life. I read a book about mathematicians and they often say that at least some of their (abstruse, abstract) maths has some utilization. Actually I think similar arguments (perhaps wrongly "guilty") apply to spening time watching porn or writing or playing golf or swimming or eating! Whatever...

I'm only throwing out ideas but I am dubious of chess.

In NZ I really enjoyed chess more when it was the time I started learning ideas, great games and combos, and endings etc also in NZ we had our own rating system. Today there is more and more connection to the rulings of FIDE which is a body slowly destroying what was ever good about chess.

There are too many stupid rules that have been introduced. There was nothing wrong with the old classical chess.

And I preferred it when I heard nothing about having a FIDE rating etc when it seemed impossible...in any case I loved the cosy atmosphere with players blundering on and all the eccentrics etc

It has all become to rule burdened. I'm not sure I want to play in another chess tournament.

But I love the game and play over old master games (I love Smyslov's games)...There is no need to actually play as such.