Chessworld.net is a long established online chess site.

If you would like play relaxed, friendly online chess, then

Register here

and meet other Youtubers or perhaps even play me in a ChessWorld Simul.

ChessWorld WebMaster - FIDE CM Kingscrusher

►Support Kingscrusher Youtube Chess via PayPal ($)
►Support Kingscrusher Youtube Chess via PayPal (£)
►Support Kingscrusher Youtube Chess via PayPal (€)

Follow KC at Google+



Come here often? » Press Ctrl+D to bookmark.

 
Chess World Online Chess Forum - Endgame Dilemma

Topic posts (latest to earliest) page 1 of 4 [1 2 3 4]


Play | Latest posts | IndexForum Name: Chess - General discussion
Forum goals: world chess events, international chess news, puzzles, OTB games
You are currently subscribed to this forum by Email - Click to unsubscribe
If you see anything that you find offensive, please report it to the Helpdesk forum

  Play ... Latest Forum Posts > Chess Forums > Chess - General discussion
  Endgame Dilemma




fullmember kirkkabaine

Chess rating: 2102



 Topics started



England
Give chess goodie
Chess goodies: 5
Mon Jan 8 2007 1:40AM | MsgID: 5948520


I got a friend to get a lazy assessment off a GM. "I would retreat the Bishop. Maybe thats just a matter of taste. I love the 2 Bishops!!!!!"









Ihaveagirlfriend

Chess rating: 2322
LCF 199 Fide approx. 2245






 Topics started



United Kingdom
Give chess goodie
Chess goodies: 6
Sun Jan 7 2007 8:54PM | MsgID: 5946847


I like the idea of saccing the f2 pawn for activity - black's 3 v 2 on the kingside cannot be used to create a passed pawn - so why not?







fullmember kingscrusher

Chess rating: 1815 Fide 2135
LCF 183 Fide approx. 2165
British Regional Master






 Topics started



United Kingdom
Give chess goodie
Chess goodies: 71
Sun Jan 7 2007 8:06PM | MsgID: 5946409


Originally posted by: "jim42078, Lord Ptarmigan"








Analyse position

the evaluation is, apparently, +/- 1.12, but more importantly some of the principles mentioned earlier have been applied, such as the blockade asnd central rook domination...



I think if Black can exchange off one pair of rooks, then perhaps Black could aim for endgame draw with the opposite coloured bishops coming into effect to save the position. Otherwise, if White reroutes the bishop to attack f7, then the 7th rank combined with the bishop will be terminal for black in the middlegame.

But stepping back earlier, I think the opposite coloured bishop situation can be avoided, and Nimzovich really takes care to explain in his section on "Passed pawns" about blockade. Really it would have been nice for Nimzo to cross reference this from his blockade chapter - as it makes the book difficult to follow. But in the section on restraining passed pawns, Blockade comes up, and one gets the impression generally from Nimzo, that the knight is his favourite blockading piece, as other blockaders are too sensitive - such as the rook, queen or king. Bishop is okay, but in this situation, the opposite coloured bishops might under the right circumstance of say a rook exchange, help black secure a draw.

My own analysis of the inital position with Rybka and very quick analysis was:-








Analyse position



1. Bxf6 gxf6 2. O-O-O Bd7 3. Rhe1 O-O-O 4. Nd4 Kc7 (4... Bd6 5. Bf5 Bf4+ 6. Kb1
Be5 7. Bxd7+ Rxd7 8. Nf5 Rxd1+ 9. Rxd1 Re8 10. g3 Bb8 11. f4 a6 12. Rd2 Bc7 13.
c3 Re1+ 14. Kc2 h5 15. h4 Re8 16. Kd3 b5 17. Re2 Rh8 18. Re7 Rd8+ 19. Kc2) 5.
g3 Bd6 6. Bf5 Bxf5 (6... Bc5 7. b4 Bxd4 (7... Bxf5 8. Nxf5) 8. Re7) 7. Nxf5 Bc5
8. b4 Rxd1+ (8... Bxf2 9. Re7+ Kb8 10. Rxf7) 9. Rxd1 Bxf2 10. Rd6 Be3+ 11. Kb2
Rf8 12. Kb3 Bg1 13. h4 Bf2 14. Rxf6 *

I have ended lines where a clear advantage is obtained, assuming it would be winnable.

Illustrating the above analysis now:-

After 2. 0-0-0








Analyse position



Castling queenside seems a good idea for White, to neutralise black's rook afer black potentially castles queenaside. If White can exchange off one pair of rooks, the dynamic counterplay comepnsation for the structural damage can be compensated for. So exchanging of rooks may be a very important part of the plan here.

4.Nd4








Analyse position



This is more nifty loking than Nh4. The knight can still head for the f5 blockade point, but maybe elsewhere if Black varies. So it carries the advantage of Nh4 but more flexibility because it is a centralising move as well.

10. g3








Analyse position



The doubled pawns give black potential pressure on the semi-open g file. As well as this, Black's dark squared bishop might become dangerous after trying to seize f5 too quickly. So a bit of patience with this preparation move is good I think.

6. Bf5








Analyse position



As I mentioned, I think the preferred blockader under Nimzovich is the Knight, and not a bishop. But added to this, is that having an opposite coloured bishops situation might give black some drawing chances later on. So I prefer if the two bishops are stripped from black, and just head for the knight vs bishop situation, with the knight being the doubled pawn blockader.








Analyse position



8.b4

White has a fast way to gain access to the weaknesses. Not just by the frontal attack, but also from a side attack. Here, the doubled pawns can be attacked from the d6 square. So b4, tries to evict the bishop, and gain access to d6 for a rook, to attack f6. Then the two isolated pawns would be natural subsequent targets for attack.








Analyse position



10.Rd6

White's strategy is now triumphing and it is much better winning chances in either OTB or correspondence chess. The doubled pawns strategy and blockade strategies, were good, but need to be combined with simplification and trying to restrict black's counterplay.







fullmember jim42078, Lord Ptarmigan

Chess rating: 2265
LCF 114 Fide approx. 1820






 Topics started



England
Give chess goodie
Chess goodies: 32
Sun Jan 7 2007 4:37PM | MsgID: 5944913


I think that I'll join in this discussion, the first for a while.

In any OTB game, I would prefer 14.Bxf6 to 14.Bd3 simply becuase I think taht at my level of 120 or less, black would find it harder to get anything out of the resulting position than I would. But I'm not quite sure what the follow-up might be.

Fritz6 suggested 15.Nd4 Bc5 16.0-0-0 Be6 17.b4 Bb6 and then the surprising idea of 18.Nf5!?, with the point that 18. ...Bxf5 19.Bxf5 Bxf2 20.Rd2 Bh4 21.Kb2 (I tihnk that Fritz might just be making a move here, rather than with anything specific in "mind") 21. ...0-0 22.Rd7 Rab8 23.g3 Bg5 24.Re1 and black's pieces are all very restricted.







Analyse position

the evaluation is, apparently, +/- 1.12, but more importantly some of the principles mentioned earlier have been applied, such as the blockade asnd central rook domination.

I'm not certain, of course, that white is winning here, as playing deeper seems to show that black can hold out, but it looks difficult for him to do so in practice.

In conclusion, although black may be able to hold in theory, it looks easier at my level to make things practically difficult for him. I would go 14.Bxf6.







fullmember kingscrusher

Chess rating: 1815 Fide 2135
LCF 183 Fide approx. 2165
British Regional Master






 Topics started



United Kingdom
Give chess goodie
Chess goodies: 71
Sun Jan 7 2007 2:12PM | edited: 2:24:56 | MsgID: 5943906


Originally posted by: "kirkkabaine"
...With the pawn on a2 4.c3 is great move isnt it?. Reinforces the Knight increases the suffication of the dark squared Bishop and lets the king get to the center easier. Now I can see clearly in the above that the Nf5 just suffocates the Black squared Bishop. I still want to actively rebel against Nimzo`s ideas!




No you must not go to the dark side! You must use the force Luke! You must believe in the force of Nimzovich - intution vs. calculation. When people on the "dark side" think pawn-grabbing is good with their less than 15 ply computer analysis in relays, you must tell them "Go away Patzers! Look at the knight on e6 White gets! Learn about positional chess!". Look more than your poxy 15 half-move ply ahead, and you will see an evaluation swing! :)

Seriously though, I think it may be a good idea on the Chessworld forums to start doing our own re-assessment of Nimzovich. We could take his basic concepts, and like that website has done for doubled pawns, finding modern examples discussing each concept and qualifying it.

For example Nimzovich in his chapter on "Development" mocks the moves by black of [[1.e4 d5 2.exd5 Qxd5]] as wasting tempo, and basically unplayable.

Well some of his translated words were:-

"If I were running a race with someone, it would be, to say the least, inopportune were I to throw away valuable time by say, rubbing dirt off my nose, although I must not be considered as blaming that operation in itself. If, however, I can induce my opponent to waste time by a similar action, I would then get an advantage in development over him......." and then gives the Scandinavian Defence as his example."

But the Scandinavian "tempo-losing" system has been revitalised by modern GMs like Ian Rogers who later play moves like Qa5, c6, Bf5, etc and reach a solid and comfortable position - which has the feel of the Caro-kann. There is no need later for black to play Qe6+ as in the Nimzovich example. So a "re-qualification" of Nimzovichian concepts would be good with modern GM examples. Losing tempo is not always a bad thing, if you can reach a solid position.

King,Daniel J.
vs.
Rogers,Ian 2570
1998, England - Round 11, England, ECO B01

Scandinavian (centre counter) defence
[[
1.e4 d5 2.exd5 Qxd5 3.Nc3 Qa5 4.d4 Nf6 5.Bc4 c6 6.Bd2 Bf5 7.Nd5 Qd8 8.Nxf6+ gxf6 9.Bf4 Nd7 10.Nf3 Nb6 11.Bb3 a5 12.a4 Nd5 13.Bg3 Bh6 14.O-O O-O 15.Nh4 Bg6 16.Qf3 e6 17.Rad1 b5 18.Rfe1 Bg7 19.Nxg6 hxg6 20.Bh4 Qd6 21.c3 Rfc8 22.g4 Ra7 23.Bg3 Qd7 24.Re2 bxa4 25.Bxa4 Nb6 26.Bc2 a4 27.Ra1 c5 28.Rd1 c4 29.Ra1 Rca8 30.Be4 Nd5 31.Ra3 Rb7 32.h4 f5 33.gxf5 gxf5 34.Bxd5 Qxd5 35.Qxd5 exd5 36.Bd6 Bf6 37.h5 Kh7 38.Kg2 Rb6 39.Bc5 Re6 40.Kf3 Kh6 41.Ra1 Re4 42.Rxe4 fxe4+ 43.Kf4 Bh4 44.f3 Bg5+ 45.Ke5 e3 46.Re1 Re8+ 47.Kxd5 e2 48.Bd6 Bh4 49.Bf4+ Kxh5 50.Bd2 Bxe1 51.Bxe1 Rb8 0-1
]]

Playable game scores in this posting
Playable game #1


Playable game #2










fullmember kirkkabaine

Chess rating: 2102



 Topics started



England
Give chess goodie
Chess goodies: 5
Sun Jan 7 2007 2:06PM | MsgID: 5943876


Originally posted by: "Indeterminist"
I've been sampling some whisky so... but the way I would play it would be 2. Nh4 and castle asap for white, preferably 0-0-0, but there's no hurry to get the actual blockading move in is there?




With the pawn on a2 or a3!?







fullmember kirkkabaine

Chess rating: 2102



 Topics started



England
Give chess goodie
Chess goodies: 5
Sun Jan 7 2007 2:04PM | MsgID: 5943865


Originally posted by: "kingscrusher"


In the meantime though, may I ask if you have thrown out all of Nimzovich's ideas such as "Restrain-Blockade-Destroy", and are going for a more "concrete" analytical approach?! Can Nimzovichian principles be qualified with modern game examples, to be able to deduce other success factors for doubling pawns, etc?! Surely there is no need to throw out Nimzovich completely though ?!

The website Ihaveagirlfriend pointed to is very interesting, because he has collected a lot of high level examples of doubled pawns, and the games are replayable. In one example Morozevich encourages the doubling of his pawns because of the extra piece activity he had and the difficulty of White's position tactically. The conclusion drawn in the article about structural weaknesses vs activity is very interesting. He emphasises rook activity as one key factor for whether or not doubling pawns is going to be leading to an advantage.




I have some real big issues at the moment with Nimzowitch and struggle with his games in predicting his moves for example the consultation game where he 0-0-0, I just assumed White should be playing c5 b4 b5 and its game over which shows I have lots of things to learn from him.

However I do agree with the idea of an eventual Nf5 or Bf5 its just that my intentions for it are even more long term than anyone elses because I think if we swap all the pieces off its a won Rubinstein king and pawn endgame but thats a pipe dream. Anyway this morning I have come to realise the power of the Knight on f5 and what a technical weakie I really am.

My technical points that I have noticed are

King and pawn endgame if White gets his King to the Kingside first its winning
If White can make a rook lift first he is winning
If White castles Kingside Bishop endgame of the same colour should be winning


My win with the pawn on a2.
1.Bxf6 gxf6 2.0-0-0 Bd7 3.Nd4 0-0-0 4.c3 Be6 5.Bf5 and now White has a winning position. It doesnt matter if Black throws in a Bishop check, Kb1 Rhe1.

With the pawn on a2 4.c3 is great move isnt it?. Reinforces the Knight increases the suffication of the dark squared Bishop and lets the king get to the center easier. Now I can see clearly in the above that the Nf5 just suffocates the Black squared Bishop. I still want to actively rebel against Nimzo`s ideas!







fullmember kingscrusher

Chess rating: 1815 Fide 2135
LCF 183 Fide approx. 2165
British Regional Master






 Topics started



United Kingdom
Give chess goodie
Chess goodies: 71
Sun Jan 7 2007 1:28PM | edited: 1:38:58 | MsgID: 5943613


Originally posted by: "kirkkabaine"
The problem with the Blockading Knight strategy is, it doesnt do anything.

1.Bxf6 gxf6 2.Nd4 Bd7 3.Bf5 0-0-0 4.Bxd7+ Rxd7 5.Nf5 Bc5 And Black must be fine, perhaps even slightly better.

Am I missing a better way to either get to or use this Knight f5 strategy?

The main probleum with White in most plans is his Kings in the center. I refuse to believe in anything other than an early 0-0 unless I missing something....




I have looked at some variations with an engine with White castling queenside (assuming Q-side castling is legal in this position). This helps reduce black's counterplay if one pair of Rooks can be exchanged off. If Black's rook counterplay can be reduced, then the blockade strategy has more effectiveness, because the next targets after are potentially the isolated f7 and h7 pawns.

Variations seem too much like hard work to me kkk - we seem to be on opposite sides of the fence at the moment between lazy intuition and hard-work of variations. If we played a long OTB game, would I be wandering around the room playing intuitive positional moves, and would you would be frantically analysing variations like Kotov at the board?! What if you had two or more match games in the same week at night - could you cope with all the analysis needed with the "concrete" approach?!

If you want, I can post the engine-checked analysis later to the forum. In the meantime though, may I ask if you have thrown out all of Nimzovich's ideas such as "Restrain-Blockade-Destroy", and are going for a more "concrete" analytical approach?! Can Nimzovichian principles be qualified with modern game examples, to be able to deduce other success factors for doubling pawns, etc?! Surely there is no need to throw out Nimzovich completely though ?!

The website Ihaveagirlfriend pointed to is very interesting, because he has collected a lot of high level examples of doubled pawns, and the games are replayable. In one example Morozevich encourages the doubling of his pawns because of the extra piece activity he had and the difficulty of White's position tactically. The conclusion drawn in the article about structural weaknesses vs activity is very interesting. He emphasises rook activity as one key factor for whether or not doubling pawns is going to be leading to an advantage. The article in effect throws a modern view on Nimzovichian doubled pawn strategy with a few nice examples from high level games.

Although the subsequent "blockade" strategy is not really emphasised in the examples. Perhaps if you have the time and luxury in a particular position to "blockade" then that means it is more appropriate to double the opponents pawns - without for example being crushed by the opponent's rook counterplay, etc ?!







Indeterminist

Chess rating: 2052



 Topics started



United Kingdom
Give chess goodie
Chess goodies: 14
Sun Jan 7 2007 3:14AM | MsgID: 5941745


I've been sampling some whisky so... but the way I would play it would be 2. Nh4 and castle asap for white, preferably 0-0-0, but there's no hurry to get the actual blockading move in is there?







fullmember kirkkabaine

Chess rating: 2102



 Topics started



England
Give chess goodie
Chess goodies: 5
Sat Jan 6 2007 5:30AM | MsgID: 5934941


The problem with the Blockading Knight strategy is, it doesnt do anything.

1.Bxf6 gxf6 2.Nd4 Bd7 3.Bf5 0-0-0 4.Bxd7+ Rxd7 5.Nf5 Bc5 And Black must be fine, perhaps even slightly better.

Am I missing a better way to either get to or use this Knight f5 strategy?

The main probleum with White in most plans is his Kings in the center. I refuse to believe in anything other than an early 0-0 unless I missing something.

1.Bxf6 gxf6 2.0-0 must be right. Bd7 3.Nd4 0-0-0 4.Rad1 and Now we are at what I would deem to be another critical position where Black has a few choices that really change the shape of the rest of the game.

4...Bc5 looks natural. I think white can play 5.b4 because Bxd4 and Whites Rook can get to the structural weakness of the pawns on the Kingside plus his Bishop is better and king is closer.

5...Bb6 should be met by 5.c4

its just 4...Bd6 that could well be an equaliser. Centralising.








      Pages:[1 2 3 4]