Chess Forum
uskidscompute.com << online chess - < chess - chess > - chess online >>
| From | Message |
| Posted by binkers uskidscompute.com 8/30/2002 22:52:32 |  Subject: is Q vs R endgame winnable? Message: A while back I played a game where I had Q & K only vs R & K only, and found it seemingly impossible to win. I found the K & R could always stay by one another, and prevent the K/Q from moving in to mate. is it possible? Vern |
| Posted by atrifix uskidscompute.com 8/30/2002 22:56:48 | Yes Message: KQ vs. KR is a win for the KQ. In practice, the endgame is usually easy to win because of inaccuracies by the side with the KR; however, playing against perfect defense, it can be very difficult to win. GM Walter Browne drew a computer in a match with the KQ; in the rematch he narrowly avoided a draw by winning the rook on the 50th(!) move. The maximum number of moves required to win the rook is about 35, I believe. For in-depth study, consult at a tablebase or John Nunn's Secrets of Pawnless Endings. For a basic primer, look at any endgame manual, e.g., Seirawan's Winning Chess Endings, Tarrasch's Game of Chess, Lasker's Manual of Chess, etc. |
| Posted by macheide uskidscompute.com 8/31/2002 09:03:33 | binkers Message: atrifix is right. The definitive explanation about this important end game is precisely in John Nunn´s: "Secrets of Pawnless Endings". Why is this ending so important? Because in K+R+P vs K+R endings it is very common that the stronger side sacrifice his rook in order to promote, resulting in a K+Q vs K+R endgame. Regards. ——— Aggressive Strategy Pays Off at Women’s Grand Prix Event — Here’s a striking fact about the game of chess: There is only one woman ranked among the world’s top 100 players. There is no obvious reason for such a disparity in a purely intellectual game. One dubious explanation put forward over the years is that women are not as naturally aggressive as men and that successful chess requires frequent attacks. Yet in women-only chess events, a higher proportion of the games end in decisive finishes than they do at chess tournaments in which men participate. That has held true in the current Women’s Grand Prix series. The third tournament, which ended earlier this month in Nalchik, Russia, was dominated by Zhao Xue of China, who won 9 of her first 10 games before ... |
| Posted by binkers uskidscompute.com 9/01/2002 00:04:56 | yes, but TOUGH! Message: found this comment on the web The endgame Queen vs Rook is still a classic and deceptively difficult to play. Most GMs are not able to win it against the perfect defence of the computer.The endgame Queen vs Rook is still a classic and deceptively difficult to play. Most GMs are not able to win it against the perfect defence of the computer. and gives and example of actual master play where there was a draw. ——— On Chess: Fischer figured he could draw with God — Bobby Fischer was renowned for his objectivity in regard to matters of chess. When confronted with the question of whether he could defeat God at chess, he immediately rejected the notion. Nevertheless, he insisted, “With White, I should be able to draw against him. I play e4 and, if we have a Ruy (Lopez opening), the position would be balanced, and I would never lose.” It might be relevant that religion was a lifelong passion for Fischer. His biographer, Frank Brady, noted that Fischer carried a Bible with him during his early years. It is, therefore, likely that he was familiar with the biblical story of Jacob wrestling with God before his fearful reunion with his brother Esau — whose birthright he had stolen — at ... |
| Posted by atrifix uskidscompute.com 9/01/2002 09:34:56 | Well, Message: GM Walter Browne is an experienced GM and endgame technician. In all probability most GMs could win KQ vs. KR against a computer at this point in time because of the influence of computer-generated tablebases. The Browne match took place in the 1980s, I believe. At any rate, in practice the ending is usually very easy to win and usually any chessplayer will avoid it if possible. It is not best to keep the rook by the king (even though this was accepted endgame theory until about 20 years ago), and in fact, it is easy to win provided the KR side does this. Moving the rook away from the king at certain points makes it much more difficult for the KQ side to win. ——— Vlad Kramnik holds his hoodoo over Judit Polgar — The phenomenon of the difficult opponent against whom you have poor results which create a psychological mountain is well known to many chess players. At top level, it can change careers and decide world-class chess events. Bobby Fischer often did badly against Ewfim Geller, which helped spark the American's failure in the 1962 candidates. Garry Kasparov found Vlad Kramnik tough, and eventually lost his world title to the younger Russian. The all-time best woman Judit Polgar has proved herself the equal or superior of dozens of the top men. But she struggled against Kasparov, including in an infamous game where he retracted a knight move, and she also has a large minus total against ... |
| Posted by brunetti uskidscompute.com 9/01/2002 12:34:37 | This Message: only from a theoretical standpoint, i.e. looking at tablebases statistics one may find that the win requires more moves in some positions where the pieces are separated. In practice, over the board, when the player can't check the tablebase, 20 years ago theory is perfectly sound, and separating the two pieces allows, usually, the Queen to win the Rook with a series of checks. So, the best accepted strategy (unless you'ree playing by correspondence, but in that case there's no nedd to continue the game) i s to keep the pieces together (until the stronger side forces the usual zugzwang position where the Rook has to move away, i.e. Kc6+Qd8, Ka7+Rb7: Black must move the Rook, and White will win it after a short series of checks). Alex ——— Iranian, Refusing to Play Israeli, Expelled From Chess Tournament — One of Iran’s top chess grandmasters was expelled from an international chess tournament on Tuesday after he refused to play a match against an Israeli opponent, the director of the tournament said. The Iranian, Ehsan Ghaem Maghami, was scheduled to play Ehud Shachar in the fourth round of the Corsica Masters, a pairing determined by computer. The director, LĂ©o Battesti, said in a telephone interview that Mr. Maghami had asked him to change the pairing, but was told that doing so would violate chess tournament rules. Mr. Maghami then failed to appear at the scheduled time to play Mr. Shachar. Mr. Battesti said Mr. Maghami should have told him beforehand that he would object to ... |
| Posted by binkers uskidscompute.com 9/01/2002 15:03:20 | very interesting Message: theory, but an endgame I will strive studiously to avoid in future! thanks for all your learned comments. Vern ——— Mastering Chess: Talent Or Practice? — Why do some people, chess players or musicians, practice less but attain more? The common belief is that practice is necessary to achieve mastery in chess, but it's not enough. There has to be something else that sets apart people who get really good at chess, just like in music. A study published in Psychological Science last year found that musicians need a lot of practice, but researchers identified one additional factor: musicians who are better at sight-reading have better working memory, the ability to keep relevant pieces of information active in your mind. For chess, that additional factor has not yet been pinned down. One possibility is intelligence. A lot of studies have found that children who play chess have ... |
| Posted by atrifix uskidscompute.com 9/01/2002 16:13:47 | Message: You *really* should know how to win this ending. It's a very important ending to know and be able to win 100% of the time. As macheide pointed out, this ending can occur even from rook endings--the most common of all endings. Also, studying the ending gives you a better understanding of the pieces and coordination. A quick basic example: White rook on c1, king on h1, pawns on b5, a6. Black rook on a7, pawn on c7, king on f7. White wins immediately with 1. Rxc7 Rxc7 2. b6 and one of the pawns will queen, resulting in a KQ vs. KR ending. White might have another way to win the position, but it would be extremely difficult and might result in a draw. Practically any strong player would play 1. Rxc7 instantly, securing a routine technical conversion into a full point. At any rate the ending is usually basic and an extremely important one to know. It's similar to knowing how to mate with a king, bishop, and knight vs. bare king, an easy win provided the stronger side knows the theory. Most serious players will be able to win this ending even with just a few minutes. |