<zanzibar> ;-)

<sachistu> <Game 10> played in the Budapest match befor - <Game 6 is> in reality <Game 10> (result 1/2) & <Game 6> of the match <is unknown>...

(... I can upload my Charousek books - if it is of interest...)

Yuri Averbakh:

This interesting position was saved from oblivion by Dedrle (1950). It was reached in a simultaneous display, and after unsuccessful attempts to win, Charousek agreed to a draw. But analysis by Josef and Johann Kvicala demonstrated the possibility of a win.

<1. Ke4!> With the key squares being c6, d6 and e6, the main file is the d-file. If White's chances lay only in taking the opposition on the main file, he would be unable to achieve anything. He wins only by combining this threat with the appropriate preparation of h3-h4.

<Ke8! 2. Kf3!> Now Black is in dilemma: after 2... Ke7 he loses the opposition, while if 2... Kf7 or 2... Kd7, White succeeds in playing h3-h4.

For example:

2... Kf7 3. h4! (with the threat of 4. h5; with the king at e7 or d7 this does not work due to 3... gh 4. g5 Kd6 and 5... Ke5, but now the king does not have the e6 square) gxh4 4. g5 Ke7 5. Kg4 Kd6 6. Kxh4 Ke5 7. Kg4 Kd6 8. Kf4 and 9. g6

2... Kd7 (the king is now so far away that White has time for a necessary preparatory move) 3. Kg3! Ke7 4. h4 gxh4+ 5. Kxh4 Kf6 (otherwise 6. Kg5) 6. Kh5 and wins.

<2... Ke7 3. Ke3 Kd7 4. Kd3 Ke7 5. Kc4 Kd8 6. Kd4 Ke8 7. Kc5 Kd7 8. Kd5 Ke7 9. Kc6> 9. Ke5 (this is quicker than Kf7) <9... Kf6 10. Kd6 Kf7 11. Kd7 Kf8 12. Ke6 Ke8 13. f6 g6 14.f7+ Kf8 15. Kd6! Kxf7 16. Kd7> winning. A valuable analysis!

<Telemus> Averbakh's analysis above is from a digital edition (by Convekta) of 'Comprehensive Chess Endings', with minimal difference to the original book - 'Pawn Endings', p. 171-172(Batsford; First edition, 1974).

...

Charousek's opponent in the simul on the Prague Chess Club (22.2.1897) was probably the little know Problem composer <Zdeněk Kosterka> ...?

The following miniature is missing in Kalendovsky's book 'The Complete Games of Oldrich Duras':

[Event "CSpS"]
[Site "Prague"]
[Date "1902.??.??"]
[White "Kosterka"]
[Black "Duras, Oldrich"]
[Result "1-0"]
[ECO "C33"]

1. e4 e5 2. f4 exf4 3. Bc4 d5 4. Bxd5 Qh4+ 5. Kf1 g5 6. Nf3 Qh5 7. h4 Bg7 8. Nc3 Ne7 9. d4 Nbc6 10. Bxc6+ Nxc6 11. d5 Bxc3 12. bxc3 Ne5 13. Ba3 Bg4 14. Qd4 Nxf3 15. gxf3 Bxf3 16. Qe5+ Kd7 17. Qe7+ Kc8 18. d6 1-0

'More from Prague'

Simultaneous games:

(Charousek scored +20 -1 =7)

Charousek vs K Vocasek, 1897 (Source: Ceske listy sachove 1897, p. 38-39.)

.

[Event "28-board simultaneous display"]
[Site "Prague, CC"]
[Date "1897.02.22"]
[White "Charousek, Rudolf Rezso"]
[Black "Popov, A."]
[Result "1-0"]
[ECO "C29"]

1. e4 e5 2. Nc3 Nf6 3. f4 d5 4. fxe5 Nxe4 5. Qf3 $1 Nxc3 6. dxc3 c6 7. Bd3 Qb6 8. Ne2 Be6 9. Nd4 Nd7 10. Nxe6 fxe6 11. Qh5+ Kd8 12. Bg5+ Kc7 13. O-O-O Bc5 14. Rhf1 g6 15. Qh3 h6 16. Bf6 Rae8 $2 17. Bxh8 Rxh8 18. Rf7 $1 1-0

Source: Svetozor 5.3.1897

.

Exhibition games:

Svejda/Kotrc/Kvicala v Charousek/Moucka/Tuzar

(Kotrc / Kvicala / Svedja vs Charousek, 1897 - <missing Charousek's allies>)

Source: Charuchin - Chess Comet Rudolf Charousek, p. 214.

.

[Event "Prague"]
[Date "1897.02.19"]
[White "Kotrc, Jan"]
[Black "Charousek, Rudolf Rezso"]
[Result "1/2-1/2"]
[ECO "C66"]

1. e4 e5 2. Nf3 Nc6 3. Bb5 d6 4. d4 Bd7 5. Nc3 Nf6 6. Bg5 Be7 7. O-O a6 8. Ba4 O-O 9. a3 b5 10. Bb3 Bg4 11. Bxf6 gxf6 12. Ne2 Bxf3 13. gxf3 Qd7 14. Bd5 Kh8 15. Bxc6 Qxc6 16. Ng3 Rg8 17. Kh1 Rg5 18. d5 Qd7 19. Nf5 Rag8 20. Qd3 Bf8 21. Rg1 R5g6 22. Rg3 Bh6 23. Nxh6 Rxh6 24. Rag1 Rhg6 25. Qe3 f5 26. Rxg6 Rxg6 27. Rxg6 f4 28. Qa7 hxg6 29. Kg2 f5 30. Qxa6 fxe4 31. fxe4 Qg4+ 32. Kf1 Qd1+ 33. Kg2 Qxc2 34. Qxb5 Qxe4+ 35. f3 Qc2+ 36. Kh3 Qf5+ 37. Kg2 Kg7 38. Qe8 1/2-1/2

Source: Jan Kotrč - Aus meiner Mappe, Arbeiter Schachzeitung - Wien, 1927, No. 3, p. 73.

.

See: Jan Kalendovsky - Historie šachu v Čechách, p. 49-50 (https://www.chess.cz/wp-content/upl...)

Lomonosov TB7 gives

1. Ke4 Ke8 2. Ke3 Kd7 3. Kd3 Kc7 4. Ke4 Kd6 5. Kd4 Ke7 6. Kc5 Kd7 7. Kd5 Ke7 8. Kc6 Ke8 9. Kd6 Kf7 10. Kd7 Kf8 11. Ke6 Ke8 12. f6 g6 13. f7+ Kf8 14. Kd6 Kxf7 15. Kd7 Kf6 16. Ke8 Kg7 17. Ke7 Kh7 18. Kf7 Kh6 19. Kf6 Kh7 20. Kxg5 Kg7 21. h4 Kf7 22. Kh6 Kf6 23. g5+ Kf5 24. Kh7 Ke5 25. Kxg6 Kd5 26. h5 Kc5 27. h6 Kb5 28. h7 Ka5 29. h8=Q Kb5 30. Qe5+ Kb4 31. Kf6 Ka4 32. g6 Kb4 33. g7 Ka4 34. g8=Q Kb4 35. Qgb8+ Ka4 36. Qa1#

<'Rare Charousek stuff'>

A photography with Steinitz - 'Masters analyze the Cologne games':

http://www.mediafire.com/convkey/af...

Source: Magyar Sakkélet, 1951 p. 225

.

& A chess-problem by Charousek:

http://www.sakk-magazin.hu/adatlapo...

sorry <sachistu> I overlook your question - thanks to <Nosnibor>!

I have hesitated months whether I should comment this. But every time I see you or some other honorable contributor posting some long variations (and that's almost every day), I am reminded of this issue.

Firstly, a single long variation from a table base (or an engine) provides limited information. Here we got confirmation that the position is indeed won, and that the distance to mate is 36. But a single line cannot describe a win, unless it is forced or it shows a winning maneuver, a crucial idea or something like that. In the given example, Black can vary at almost every move, and White has to react with different plans. So, one has to provide more than one line to describe the win.

Secondly, Averbakh is the wrong person to get any credit for the ending. According to <JD>'s quote he mentioned Dedrle and the Kvicalas, but it is unclear whether Dedrle contributed to the analysis. In the Encyclopedia of Chess Endings, where Averbakh was one of the editiors, only the Kvicalas are named. So, I assume that Dedrle's merit is just what Averbakh wrote: to save the position from oblivion (by republishing it as I assume).

Yes, but it's best line from tablebase. Other black's vary moves goes to mate faster. It's principle of TB funcitoning. Explaining all moves in the line requires too much <long variations>. Dramatically.

<Secondly, Averbakh is the wrong person to get any credit for the ending.>

In the given case, your longest line shows one idea, but it is not a complete proof. The analysis of the Kvicalas is complete, I would say, and it consists of three lines. You see, the sensible alternative to 'one line' is not 'all lines', it is 'a complete set of significant lines'.

Engines and tablebases can help to find such a set of lines, but it needs often a lot of work and experience on the human side.

When I posted the position in November, I thought that I could simplify the solution of the Kvicalas. In particular, I thought that no lines with the breakthrough h4 are needed. If you look to the line you posted, you'll see that White's king goes to d3 (while the Kvicalas move it to f3). This also suggests that lines with h4 are not necessary. Can you solve this problem? I have the answer, but the journey is the reward.

<Engines and tablebases can help to find such a set of lines> There is a big difference between engine and endgame tablebases analysis.

Engines give us <set of lines, but it needs often a lot of work and experience on the human side.> Tablebases gives solution with 100% certainity. Yes, we can search alternative lines in this case for example for training. In other cases it's wasting the time.

<In particular, I thought that no lines with the breakthrough h4 are needed.> Yes

<If you look to the line you posted, you'll see that White's king goes to d3 (while the Kvicalas move it to f3). This also suggests that lines with h4 are not necessary. Can you solve this problem? I have the answer, but the journey is the reward.> Lomonosov's TB7 gives three winning moves - 1.Ke4 (#36), 1.Kd4 (#36), 1.Kd3 (#37). All the rest goes to draw.

1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.d4 d6 4.Bb5 Bd7 5.Nc3 Nf6 6.O-O Be7 7.Re1 exd4 8.Nxd4 O-O 9.Nde2 Ne5 10.Bxd7 Nfxd7 11.Ng3 Nc5 12.Be3 Qe8 13.Bxc5 dxc5 14.f4 Nc6 15.Nd5 Rd8 16.c3 Bh4 17.Nf5 Bxe1 18.Nf6+ Kh8 19.Qh5 gxf6 20.Qh6 1-0>

<MissScarlett: Anyone recognise this game?>

[Event "Budapest"]
[Date "1896.01.11"]
[White "Charousek, Rudolf Rezso"]
[Black "Konyovits, Miklos"]
[Result "1-0"]
[ECO "C66"]

Source: Magyar Sakktortenet Vol. 3, p. 53