GameKnot: Chess related, Radjabov

« TAP TO LOG IN

Chess related: Radjabov - kamsky move 33 ?

« Back to forum

From

Message

repecmps
13-Oct-09, 10:39

Radjabov - kamsky move 33 ?

Here's the game:
www.chessgames.com

Everyone seems to appreciate move 33. b5 leaving a hanging bishop.

Can anyone explain to a beginner like me why this move is so good?
Is it because it threatens with promotion? In that case doesn't Kamsky have time to just take
and come back?

algol
13-Oct-09, 11:33

Deleted by algol on 13-Oct-09, 12:20.

algol
13-Oct-09, 12:33

repecmps

You are correct, it is the promotion which is the problem.

The variation could be 33. b5 Rxc3 34. b6 Rc8 35. b7 Rb8 36. Ra8 Rf8 37. Rxf8+ and b8=Q+

baronderkilt
13-Oct-09, 22:59

Taking the Poisoned Bishop allows pawn promotion ...

but I think there is another defensive line to try. Tho it still loses The Exchange here, leaving Bishop & four pawns vs Rook & four pawns. Although a Rook vs a Minor piece ending, with equal pawn numbers that are all on the same side of the board, is usually a theoretical Draw, especially when the pawns are also evenly distributed (each faces an enemy pawn on its same file) ... The winning chances of the Rook side generally increase somewhat as the number of pawns is increased and also because here the pawns are not all connected, but rather are two seperate pawn islands for each player, with the open e-file inbetween.
*****

***
The other defensive line, to reach this diagram from the previous one, goes like this:
33.b5 Rxc3 34.b6 Bxc2 35.b7 Rb3 36.Ra8+ Kh8 37.b8/Q Rxb8 38.Rxb8 and again in this variation also, it is the unfortunate placement of the BL King, being on the 8th Rank & distant from the b-pawn which create BL's vulnerability.
***
Since WT is a strong GM that is going against an endgame maxim to produce this final position, by trading off extra pawns to become ahead by a full Exchange but lacking a pawn plus, I am Assuming this must be considered a Winning Ending for WT!? ...Because the usual procedure is just the Opposite, to try to convert an Exchange ahead into being pawns ahead. And he may well have to actually try to DO just that, all over again to win this ending by trading his Rook for the Bishop and probably the One Pawn on d5. (Then convert the K+P to a Win.) Just looking at this without a Study of it however, it seems logically difficult to be able to make that Sac for B+P from this position unless the sac can be made quickly, as RxB upon c4 and the the WT King run to attack the new c-pawn rather than being set up to take it. In which case I am coming up with WT winning the ending by a tempo after all the other pawn moves are expended and one king must finally move from a face off of BL pawn being on c4, his Kd5 and WT Kc3. If i've counted right and not missed one. It is a late groggy night here, But I am NOT "into" dragging out the Abominable-Chess-Box tonight to check it out.
***
[If the B were to try protecting the d5 pawn from e4 then it would be able to be kicked out by the f-pawn going to f3. So it seems more likely to place the B to the a2-g8 diagonal, probably ahead of the pawn!?]

baronderkilt
13-Oct-09, 23:15

Something just occurred to me ...

An attempt to Draw from my position if BL can adopt this formation instead ... Be6/Kf6/ pawns d5/f7/g6 & if possible on h5 !? Unless WT could then bring his Kc5 and Rd6 to attack d5 simultaneously without the BL King able to add his protection to d5, but it seems he should be able to do that. I'd hoped BL might reach Kd6 by the time that WT could bring His King & R to bear but the WT Rook would only need to check from the 6th rank such as Ra6+ (against a Kd6) then move Rc6 supported there by his Kc5 to be able to sac on d5 for that pawn plus the Be6 if it went Rxd5 Bxd5 Kxd5. Tho the B need not take back, if not then it will soon face a d4-d5 pawn push attacking it.
Wondering what you think of the R+4p vs B+4p ending, Algol ? Or anyone else.
Good Night to all, and to all a Good Knight . . . }8-]

baronderkilt
13-Oct-09, 23:18

PPS . . .

For some reason (or no reason?!) I am getting a repeated browser refusal from Firefox to load that link's game board. So I have not been able to see the actual game played, or what they actually did do. }B-(

archduke_piccolo
14-Oct-09, 03:17

I think it worth discussing the diagram position...

... posted by algol. The recommended line eventually leads to the exchange of rook for bishop, but note that in the meantime White has lost his two-pawn advantage. So in fact White has given up bishop and two pawns for a rook - a roughly even exchange, withal.

So we reach the diagram posted by baronderkilt. Pawns are parallel, no passers, nor even the threat to create a passer here. White will have to work hard to bring about a passed pawn, though I agree White ought eventually to win from here.

But why has White given up his two pawn advantage for the Exchange advantage? Ordinarily, one would give up the exchange if it meant getting a two-pawn plus. But here first diagram position isn't quite so wonderful for White. The b-pawn is good, but the c-pawn is backward, and there is no good way of activating it. In any case, White is threatened with the immediate loss of a pawn if he moves either of his Q-side pieces. With just one extra pawn, what are White's winning chances? What effect has the 'opposite colour bishops' situation, by which is meant that whatever colour squares White's bishops operate on, the Black bishop operates on the other colour? This can often be very useful for the defence in endgames.

algol
14-Oct-09, 05:45

baronderkilt

Indeed, much better defensive line! I have to go to work now but may have a look at the endgame you are discussing tonight. Kamsky did not go for this however and played 33. ... Rb8 instead. Here is the game which repecmps is referring to:

[Event "Corus - Wijk aan Zee NED - Round 6"]
[Date "2009.01.23"]
[White "Teimour Radjabov"]
[Black "Gata Kamsky"]
[Result "1-0"]

1. e4 c6 2. d4 d5 3. Nc3 dxe4 4. Nxe4 Bf5 5. Nc5 b6 6. Nb3 e6
7. Nf3 Nf6 8. g3 Nbd7 9. Bg2 Qc7 10. O-O Rd8 11. Qe2 Bd6
12. Re1 O-O 13. Nh4 Bg4 14. Qc4 Nd5 15. Bg5 Rc8 16. a4 b5
17. Qd3 N7b6 18. Nc5 h6 19. Bd2 Nc4 20. axb5 cxb5 21. h3 Bh5
22. Bxd5 exd5 23. Bc3 Rfe8 24. b3 Ne5 25. Qxb5 Bxc5 26. Qxc5
Qd7 27. Qxa7 Qxa7 28. Rxa7 Nf3+ 29. Nxf3 Bxf3 30. Rxe8+ Rxe8
31. b4 Bd1 32. Ra2 Rc8 33. b5 Rb8 34. Rb2 f6 35. Ba5 Be2
36. b6 Rb7 37. Rb1 Kf7 38. Bd2 g5 39. Bc1 Bf3 40. Ba3 Be4 41. Bd6 1-0

algol
14-Oct-09, 19:56

...

I looked at several games with this material distribution and the side with the rook usually wins using the greater mobility of the rook. Some pawns are exchanged to create weaknesses or to allow the rook to cut of the defending king. This rather often goes quite easily.

In Mestel - Wade, Eastbourne 1973 the locked pawns were on the c-file and there black threatened to exchange the rook for the bishop after which the offensive king comes to collect the isolated pawn as described by baronderkilt in his first post. Wade resigned instead.

The Hungarian championship from 1975 had a game with exactly the same structure as the one we are discussing in this thread, also originating from a caro-kann. It is Lukacs - Perecz (www.365chess.com). Here is the position after black's 46-th move Kf6-f5:

This is very close to the defensive setup which baronderkilt was proposing in his second post. The bishop is posted on c4 here instead of the proposed e6 square: Better mobility, but of course f7 is not covered now. With Kf6-f5 blacks wants to play more active anyway.

The rest of the game was 47. f3 Bb5 48. Ra5 Bc4 49. Kf2 Kf4 50. Ra7 f6 51. g3+ Kf5 52. Ke3 Bf1 53. Ra1 Bc4 54. Rg1 g5 and black resigned. Trading pawns will create problems for black, for instance 55. g4+ Kg6 56. gxh5+ Kxh5 57 hxg5 fxg5 58. f4 g4 (gxf4 and the black king is cut off, a typical theme) 59. Rh1+ Kg6 60. Rh4 and black is soon going to lose the weak g-pawn.

« Back to forum