The game: game

I knew it was a draw. I wanted you to prove to me that you knew how to draw.

The thing with the rook and knight vs rook 'book' draw, like many such draws, is that sometimes it is not a draw. But there are other reasons to persist in playing: to test your opponent; or to test yourself. Whether I would have played on to 50 moves myself in a game like this, I can't say for sure, but I reckon I would have tried a few things before agreeing to split the point. Especially given the rating differential.

It is 'Elephant' in Russian, too (Slon), but 'Fool' in French. The German word 'Laufer' seems to be associated with running, though whether that equates to light infantry or scouts, I don't know. Having said that, Black retains the 'better' of his two bishops.

Normally, the semi-opening of the h column compensates for the loss of the bishop's pair... depending on how the games develops. About the concept of "good" and "bad" bishop... there is a lot to say, and I am not convinced about the concept itself. After c5, black's dsb seems to be caged in, and if b6, Na4...

The e7-bishop and queen are now restricted from the queenside.

This advance isn't always good, but when it is, it is crippling. Black will probably strive to get in a strike at e5 or b6.

Black is in a tough position here, but at least white is not on the offensive yet with his most powerful pieces.

Nice break move

Probably just as well to get in that strike at once!

Indeed, good move.

At move 13 I would have been tempted to close the centre (...e4) and look for K-side attack. White seems, however, to be hoping Black would play just that!

I'm afraid you're a little confused jkarp. The proper thing to do is look at your opponent's forcing moves, then look at your own, and determine the best move. It's ineffective to consider only your opponent's forcing moves because you might look only at your en prise pawn and miss a forced checkmate; and if you don't look at your opponent's forcing moves you won't know what his threats are, and you might blunder.

This little counter-attack is motivated by the hope of breaking up White's Q-side, or at least containing it before it can damage Black's Q-side structure. So the move combines the motives of attack and defence. More defensively minded would be ...a6, and it is doubtful whether White could make use of the weakened dark squares.

Black doesn't really lose the knight, he gets 3 pawns for it which is a small disadvantage. Remember minor pieces are worth 3¼ pawns not 3. (Note tempi has one i)

cplusplus11, the value of minor pieces depends on how good the minor pieces are. For example, good bishops are worth more than bad bishops. I am talking about this is general.

In my view a very interesting and courageous strategic decision. geniusacamel is correct to point out that the qualitative material situation can be as important as the quantitative. In upcoming situation, Black's 3 pawns are a bit far back, whioch might make them worth rather less than the knight, but they are all passed. There are upsides and downsides to that! White will have to stop them with pieces - but that also means that they may be vulnerable to attack by pieces. The sequel should be sufficiently exciting!

Black still has his three 'passers'. White was in a spot of bother on account of Black's central presence, but he seems to have thrown that back. The game remains tense.

Yes, a close even game indeed! I see how and why this would end in a draw.

Yep, it never hurts to keep playing when you have all the winning chances.

I would keep playing here if I had White. I'm not sure that it is 'drawn' objectively speaking. Here's a thing: from here on, White is playing to win; Black is playing to draw. That is enough to justify White's playing on, if such justification were needed.

Yeah, a pawn promotion is most of the time, very hard.

I don't think it is a mistake. I would have played Kg5 as well.

Gk computer has some issues, but remember that the better ones should be trusted if the analysis depth is deep enough.

The line given by the machine is not convincing (in fact I form the impression Black might be winning at the end of it!). I'd probably be inclined to try 48.g3 here, to keep the BK out of the K-side.

At this point, I'd be inclined to step up the pressure on c4 by 50.Na3 though Black can defend after 50...Kd5 51.Nb5!? Re7ch.

Ion, I strongly considered Na3 at first but I changed my mind right at the very last minute.

For Black to be so confident, he has to be certain that he can wipe out White's 2 pawns even at the cost of all 4 of his own. I think he has a case, too.

Yes white has nothing to lose by playing on. (Note jkarp you cannot compare piece values the regular way in endgame without many pawns because of insufficient mating material draws; for instance two knights are normally worth 6½ pawns and rook 5 but two knight cannot checkmate, but the rook can. Thus you can't compare the results of K+R+minor piece vs K and R to determine which is worth more in the middlegame (on average)).

jkarp, R+N vs R is a known drawn ending. However I didn't know he knew how to draw. I had plenty of mate threats and kudos to eaglei for defending PERFECTLY. Additionally, R+B vs R is much easier to win. This is because R+B vs R is much harder to defend. However, I would like to say that with perfect play, R+B vs R is mostly drawn.

It's a matter of weather the attacking side can achieve one of the key positions. Both R+N vs R and R+B vs R are theoretical draws in a vaccume, but there are specific piece configerations which allow the stronger side to force a win. The B+R combo is probably the more difficult for the defending side to face but generally speaking when the pieces are in the center or the defending king is not boxed in in then it should be a simple enough matter to draw if the defender knows what they're doing.

I think Black might have made White work harder to win the pawns, but this pan is fine. Now that we have reached this point, I can see that the annotator is correct: White's winning chances are almost vanishingly slender. But this also has to be borne in mind: White's chances of losing are practically nil: he would have to lose knight and rook both. So playing on is reasonable: zero risk of losing, however small the prospect of winning.