Greengard's ChessNinja.com

Kramnik-Fritz 06 g1

| Permalink | 40 comments

It may be Saturday but there was some school in session today. Not so much during the game, although up close it looked like a model control game from Kramnik with zero danger and slight chances throughout. It was a 47-move draw out of a Catalan. It didn't look like Kramnik left a whole lot behind, at least we didn't see much during the game. But after Garry Kasparov expressed disgust at my quick and admittedly blithe express summary of the game at ChessBase he backed it up by trotting out some seriously intriguing winning tries for White in the N vs B endgame. I couple of them I can definitely say I would never have imagined.

I won't go through the hundred moves I have to work on now, especially since Garry might want some for his next New In Chess column. (And I'll put a bunch in the next Black Belt.) But the key line is 30.e3 to march the king directly to the queenside. In most of the lines we looked it Black got kingside counterplay with an h-pawn breakthrough just in time. So then he pops up with the idea of putting the knight on g2! With ..h4 thusly blocked the white king can loop all the way to e7 to hassle the f-pawn. If the black king defends it, White gets in h4 and the kingside is sealed. In other lines the bishop is forced to c3 and is vulnerable to a4. I haven't spent enough time to find a true winning line to chew on, but it's very dangerous. (I've since seen 30.e3 discussed elsewhere and I'm sure some people looked at it during the game.) I told Garry he was turning into Ulf Andersson in his retirement. Here's that sample line: 30.e3! Bc5 31.Kf3 b5 32.Ke2 e4 33.Kd2 Kg6 34.Nc7 b4 35.Nd5 Kg5 36.h3 h6!? 37.Nf4 Bd6 38.Kc2 h5 39.Ng2!

I was doing live audio commentary on chess.fm with GM Joel Benjamin and had a good time. I was pretty stiff at the start not having worked as a sort of host before with two people on at the same time. It's hard to be loose and funny when you're worried about not paying enough attention to the game and to the other commentator. I got into the swing of it by the third hour, although by then we had to banter a lot because there are only so many endgame lines you can give. Joel (who now has, gasp, a driver's license and lives in the burbs) is a pro and had lots of good stuff from his time as the coach of Deep Blue back in 1997.

Until we hear from the people on the scene (and I don't know how forthcoming ChessBase will be with this info since they obviously don't want the focus to be on the rules) we can't know how things went with the "book peek" rules. Kramnik was well ahead on time until around move 30, very rare in normal man-machine games. If Kramnik gets five more of these slight opening advantages in technical positions he'll almost certainly win one, but of course he has three games with black.


Who better to play solid chess with the black pieces against a computer than Kramnik? Too bad he doesn't have Ulf Andersson to help in that regard...especially in the endgame. If Fritz plays 1.e4 then most likely it will be a Petroff's, but uncorking the now infamous Berlin wouldn't surprise me either.

I'm skeptical the Fritz guys will try 1.e4. In 2002 they got nothing against the Berlin and then less than nothing against the Scotch. They went to d4 after that and fared much better. Since Kramnik can sort of pick his lines the more concrete possibilities with 1.e4 are treacherous for Fritz. Play 1.d4 and just hope you can keep the pieces on the board for a while.

That assessment is probably correct and I forgot about the Scotch in the 2002 match. I still have a gut feeling that 1.e4 will be played in one of the games. Anyway, and more importantly, I apologize to you and greg for the other day. I let my emotions do my thinking for me and acted inappropriately.

Going back over that thread, I believe I was the one that started the highjacking process and will do my best to stay on topic from now on. Daim or no Daim. No reply necessary.

Wow, it turned out I was looking at lines that were very similar to what Kasparov suggested.

Littlefish asked about 30.e3!? in the forum, so I decided to do some analysis with Rybka. I eventually came to realise that after 30.e3!? Bc5 31.Kf3, b5 is the best move. I looked at lines like 30.e3!? Bc5 31.Kf3 b5 32.Ke2 e4 33.Kd2 Kg6 34.Kc3 Kg5 35.Nc7 b4+ 36.Kc4 Bd6 37.Nd5 Kg4 38.Nxb4 Kf3 39.a4 Bc7! 40.Nd5 Bd8 41.Kd4 Kxf2 42.Ke5 Kg2 43.Kxf5 Kxh2 44.g4 Kg3 45. Nf6 Kf3 46. Nxe4 Kxe3 Ng5 Kd4 Nxf7 Bh4 Ng5 Kc5 Nxh7 Kb4 and black will hold.

I was looking at main lines like that and was going from branches at later moves to earlier moves to look for improvements for white. But since it has already taken me about an hour an a half, I figured I'd stop and try it tomorrow. I got as far as deciding that 34. Kc3 in my line above does NOT win, as black has enough counterplay on the K-side. So I came very close to finding Kasparov's 34.Nc7 by myself(well, with Rybka's help) earlier today and I quit just before it was about to get interesting. I guess I will continue tomorrow. So far my finding have been that with lines like one that I gave black could hold, but it was almost like black had to play the only moves in a lot of cases. So 30. e3 was definitely a better move than 30. a4 that Kramnik played. Here is the PGN with m yanalysis so far:

1. d4 Nf6 2. c4 e6 3. g3 d5 4. Bg2 dxc4
5. Qa4+ Nbd7 6. Qxc4 a6 7. Qd3 c5 8. dxc5 Bxc5 9. Nf3 O-O 10. O-O Qe7 11. Nc3
b6 12. Ne4 Nxe4 13. Qxe4 Nf6 14. Qh4 Bb7 15. Bg5 Rfd8 16. Bxf6 Qxf6 17. Qxf6
gxf6 18. Rfd1 Kf8 19. Ne1 Bxg2 20. Kxg2 f5 21. Rxd8+ Rxd8 22. Nd3 Bd4 23. Rc1
e5 24. Rc2 Rd5 25. Nb4 Rb5 26. Nxa6 Rxb2 27. Rxb2 Bxb2 28. Nb4 Kg7 29. Nd5 Bd4
30. a4 (30. e3 $5 {black's Bc5 is forced now.} Bc5 31. Kf3 (31. a4 f6 32. Kf3
Kf7 33. Ke2 Ke6 $11) 31... b5 $5 (31... Kg6 32. a4 $5 Kg5 (32... h5 33. h4 $1
Kg7 34. Ke2 Kf8 (34... f4 $5 {Sacking a pawn for bishop activity in an attempt
to prevent white King from going to the queenside.} 35. exf4 e4 (35... exf4 36.
Nxf4 Kh6 37. Kf3 $16) 36. f5 Bd4 37. f3 exf3+ 38. Kxf3 Bc5 39. Kf4 f6 (39...
Kh6 40. Ke5 Bf2 (40... Kg7 41. f6+ Kg6 (41... Kh6 42. Kf5 Bf2 43. g4 Bxh4 44.
gxh5 Bf2 (44... Kxh5 45. Nxb6 $18) 45. Nc3 $18 {
followed by Ne4-Nd6(g5) should win.}) 42. Nf4+ Kh6 43. Nd3 Be3 44. Kd6 Kg6 (
44... Kh7 45. Ke7 Kg8 46. Nf4 $18) 45. Nf4+ Bxf4+ 46. gxf4 Kxf6 47. Kc7 $18)
41. Kf6 $1 Bxg3 42. Kxf7 Bxh4 43. f6 Bg5 44. Ke6 (44. Ke8 $2 Bxf6 45. Nxf6 h4
46. Ne4 Kg6 $11) 44... Kh7 (44... Bxf6 45. Kxf6 h4 (45... Kh7 46. Kg5 $16) 46.
Nf4 Kh7 47. Kf5 Kg7 48. Kg4 Kf6 (48... h3 49. Kxh3 Kf6 (49... Kf7 50. Nd5 Ke6
51. Nxb6 Kd6 52. Nc4+ Kc6 53. a5 $18) 50. Nd5+ $18) (48... Kf7 49. Nd5 Ke6 50.
Nxb6 $18) 49. Nd5+ Ke5 50. Nxb6 Kd6 51. Nc4+ Kc5 52. a5 $18) 45. f7 Bh6 46.
Nxb6 h4 47. Nd5 h3 48. Nf6+ $18) (39... Kf8 40. Kg5 $18) 40. Kf3 $1 Bd4 41. Nf4
Kh6 42. Ne2 Bc5 43. Ke4 Kg7 44. Kd5 Be3 (44... Kf7 $2 45. a5 $1) (44... Bf2 45.
Ke6 Be1 46. Nf4 Kh6 47. Kxf6 Bxg3 48. Ng2 $18) 45. Ke6 Bf2 46. Nf4 Kh6 47. Kxf6
Bxg3 48. Ng2 Bh2 49. Ke7 $18) (34... Kg6 $6 35. f4 $1 e4 (35... exf4 36. gxf4
f6 37. Kd3 Kf7 38. Kc4 Ke6 39. a5 $1 $18) 36. Kd2 Kg7 37. Kc3 Kf8 38. Kc4 Ke8
39. a5 Kd7 (39... Bxe3 40. Nxe3 $18) 40. Kb5 bxa5 (40... Bd6 41. a6 $18) 41.
Kxc5 Ke6 42. Nc3 $18) 35. Kd3 f4 (35... Kg7 36. f4 $1 $18) 36. Kc4 $18) 33. h3
$1 h5 34. Ke2 f4 (34... h4 35. f4+ $1 exf4 36. gxf4+ Kg6 37. Kd3 Kg7 38. Kc4
Kf8 39. Kb5 Ke8 40. Nxb6 Bxe3 41. a5 Bxf4 42. Kc6 $18) 35. exf4+ exf4 36. Nxf4
h4 37. Kf3) (31... f6 32. Ke2 Kf7 33. Kd3 b5 34. Nc7 f4 (34... b4 35. Kc4 Bd6
36. Nd5 Ke6 37. Nxb4 $18) 35. gxf4 exf4 36. Nxb5 fxe3 37. fxe3 Ke7 38. a4 Kd7
39. Nd4 Ba7 40. h3 Bb6 41. Ke4 Kd6 42. Kf5 Bd8 43. e4 Bb6 44. Nb5+ Kc5 45. Kxf6
$18) 32. Ke2 e4 (32... Kg6 33. Nc7 b4 34. Kd3 Kg5 35. Kc4 Bd6 36. Nd5 Kg4 37.
Nxb4 Kf3 38. a4 Bc7 39. Nd5 Bd8 40. Kb5 Kxf2 41. a5 Bxa5 42. Kxa5 Kg2) (32...
h5 33. Kd3 Bd6 34. Nc3 b4 35. Nd5 h4 36. Kc4 hxg3 37. hxg3 Kg6 38. Nxb4 f4 39.
Nc6 $18) 33. Kd2 Kg6 34. Kc3 (34. Nc7 b4 35. Nd5 Kg5 36. h3 h6 37. Nf4 Bd6 38.
Ng2) 34... Kg5 (34... Bd6 35. h3 (35. Kb3 Kg5 36. h3 h5 37. Nc3 h4 (37... b4
38. Nb5 Be7 39. Nd4 Bd6) 38. gxh4+ Kxh4 39. Nxb5 Bb8 40. Kc3 Kxh3 41. Kd2 f4
42. exf4 Bxf4+ 43. Ke2 Bh2 44. a4 Kg2 45. Nc3 f5 46. Nd1 f4 47. a5 f3+ 48. Ke3
Bc7 49. a6 Bb6+ 50. Kxe4 Bc5 51. Kd5 Ba7 52. Kc6 Kf1 $11) 35... Kg5 36. Kd4 h5
(36... h6 37. Nc3 b4 38. Nd5 h5 39. h4+ Kg4 40. Nf6+ Kf3 41. Nxh5 Kxf2 42. Ng7
$1 Kf3 43. Nxf5 Bc7 44. Kd5 Kg4 45. Nh6+ Kxg3 46. Nxf7 Kxh4 47. Kxe4 $18) 37.
h4+ Kg4 38. Nf6+ Kf3 39. Nxh5 Kxf2 40. Ng7 Kf3 41. Nxf5 Ba3 42. h5 Kg4 43. Nh6+
Kxh5 44. Nxf7 Kg4 45. Kxe4 Bc5 $16) 35. Nc7 (35. h3 h5 36. h4+ Kg4 $11 {
And white has to defend f2.}) 35... b4+ $1 (35... Kg4 36. Nxb5 Kf3 37. Kc4 Bb6
38. Nd4+ Kxf2 39. Nxf5 Bxe3 (39... Kf3 40. Kd5 Bxe3 41. Nh4+ Kg4 42. Kxe4 Bg1
43. Nf5 Kh3 44. a4 Bb6 45. Nh6 f6 46. Ng8 Kxh2 47. g4 Kg3 48. Nxf6 h6 $18) 40.
Kd5 Kf3 41. Nh4+ Kg4 42. Kxe4 Bb6 43. a4 Kh3 44. Nf5 Kxh2 45. g4 Kh3 46. Nh6
Kg3 47. Kf5 f6 48. Ng8 Ba5 49. Nxf6 h6 50. Ng8 Bd2 51. Nxh6 Bxh6 52. g5 $18)
36. Kc4 Bd6 37. Nd5 (37. Nb5 Bf8 38. h3 h5 39. Nd4 Bd6 40. Kd5 Bf8 41. Ke5 Bg7+
42. Kd6 Bf8+ 43. Kd7 Bc5 44. Kc6 Bf8 45. Kb5 Bd6 46. Nc6 h4 47. gxh4+ Kxh4 48.
Nxb4 Kxh3 49. a4 f4 50. a5 Bb8 51. Kb6 f3 52. Kb7 Kg2 53. Kxb8 Kxf2 54. Nd5 Ke1
55. a6 f2 56. a7 f1=Q 57. a8=Q Qf5 $13) 37... Kg4 38. Nxb4 Kf3 39. a4 (39. Nc6
Kxf2 40. Nd4 Bc7 41. Nxf5 Kg2 42. Kd4 Kxh2 43. Kxe4 Bxg3 $11) 39... Bc7 $1 (
39... Bb8 40. Nd5 $18 {With a5, Kb5, etc. to follow.}) (39... Kxf2 40. a5 Bb8
41. Nd5 $18 {and Kb5 on the next move.}) 40. Nd5 Bd8 41. Kb5 (41. Kd4 Kxf2 42.
Ke5 Kg2 43. Kxf5 Kxh2 44. g4 Kg3 45. Nf6 (45. g5 Kf3 46. Ke5 Ba5 47. Kf6 Kg4)
45... Kf3 46. Nxe4 Kxe3 47. Ng5 Kd4 48. Nxf7 Bh4 49. Ng5 Kc5 50. Nxh7 Kb4 $11)
41... Kxf2 42. a5 Bxa5 43. Kxa5 Kg2 44. Ne7 Kxh2 45. Nxf5 Kh3 46. Kb5 Kg4 47.
Ne7 Kxg3 48. Kc5 h5 49. Kd4 h4 50. Nf5+ Kg4 51. Nxh4 Kxh4 52. Kxe4 Kg4 $11 53.
Kd5 Kf3 54. Ke5 Kxe3 55. Kf5 Kf3 56. Ke5) 30... Bc5 31. h3 f6 32. f3 Kg6 33. e4
h5 34. g4 hxg4 35. hxg4 fxe4 36. fxe4 Kg5 37. Kf3 Kg6 38. Ke2 Kg5 39. Kd3 Bg1
40. Kc4 Bf2 41. Kb5 Kxg4 42. Nxf6+ Kf3 43. Kc6 *

And by the way, I think you did a good job on chess.fm, Mig. I didn't notice you were stiff at the start (though I did miss like 5-10 minutes at the very start of the show). The only complaint I have is: your connection seemed to be considerably louder than GM Benjamin's - well, at least it appeared that way. I guess it was really a problem with ICC people responsible for sound volume, but it was really a minor thing.

Too bad you decided not to have that thing about Junior playing in Dortmund as a trivia contest, as I knew about it :) - well, at least I knew it did play there and was in the middle of the crosstable and I could look up the relevant info quickly.

Is it just me or do the pictures from the event up on Chessbase.com convey a feeling of professionality seldom seen at chess events? I'm used to seeing world class players strolling around in small, sh**ty rooms - what a contrast to this!

"Is it just me or do the pictures from the event up on Chessbase.com convey a feeling of professionality seldom seen at chess events? I'm used to seeing world class players strolling around in small, sh**ty rooms - what a contrast to this!"
-Posted by: randowan at November 26, 2006 05:35

German attention to detail in action?

Kramnik's comments about Fritz at Chessbase (http://www.chessbase.com/newsdetail.asp?newsid=3505) have the feel of a scripted advertisement rather than an a true assessment.

31. h3 is the kind of move that will get ?! because it's so mild, but may have changed the result from 1-0 to a draw and be the wrong plan - so in reality a ??

I think 31. f3 w 32. e4 was another winning try. The Ng2 idea you give is neat.

I think white has time for 30. a4 - although since it's not clear whether the black pawn would be weaker or stronger on b5 and b4 anyhow, and endgames like to push them, maybe Kramnik should have risked this added complexity.

Either way moves 30 and 31 were critical.

Yeah, if 1.e4?! I expect a Berlin rather than a Petrov is best suited against the machine. Against Topalov I thought it would have been the other way around.

Ok, at least the questions about how this opening-book deal works are answered now. They simply turn the flatscreen so that he can see it as well during the opening.

This is how I beat Shredder 10 with 30. f3:

[[1. d4 Nf6 2. c4 e6 3. g3 d5 4. Bg2 dxc4 5. Qa4+ Nbd7 6. Qxc4 a6 7. Qd3 c5
8. dxc5 Bxc5 9. Nf3 O-O 10. O-O Qe7 11. Nc3 b6 12. Ne4 Nxe4 13. Qxe4 Nf6
14. Qh4 Bb7 15. Bg5 Rfd8 16. Bxf6 Qxf6 17. Qxf6 gxf6 18. Rfd1 Kf8 19. Ne1 Bxg2
20. Kxg2 f5 21. Rxd8+ Rxd8 22. Nd3 Bd4 23. Rc1 e5 24. Rc2 Rd5 25. Nb4 Rb5
26. Nxa6 Rxb2 27. Rxb2 Bxb2 28. Nb4 Bd4 29. Nd5 Kg7 30. f3 Kg6 31. e4 fxe4
32. fxe4 Kh5 33. a4 Bc5 34. h3 Kg6 35. g4 Kg5 36. Kg3 Kg6 37. h4 h6 38. Kf3 Bg1
39. Ne7+ Kf6 40. Nf5 Kg6 41. Ke2 h5 42. Ne7+ Kg7 43. Kf3 Kf6 44. Nd5+ Kg6
45. Kg3 Bc5 46. gxh5+ Kxh5 47. Nf6+ Kg6 48. Nd7]] 1-0



I was analysing the game with Rybka 2.2 during live transmission and Rybka was very critical of the 'human' move 30.a4?!. After the game I analysed extensively and the idea indeed is to bring to King to the Queen side. This is the critical winning line by Rybka:

30. e3 Bc5 31. Kf3 b5
(31... f6 32. Ke2 e4 33. Kd2 Kf7 34. Kc3 Ke6 35. Kc4 +/-)
32.Ke2 e4 33. Kd2 Kg6 34. Kc3 Bd6 35. Kb3 Kg5 36. Nc3 b4 37. Nb5 Bf8 38. h3 h5 39.
Nd4 Bd6 40. Kc4 Bf8 41. Nc2 +/-

There also may be 'Kingside wins' but this one is solid I think. Let me know if you find a refutation.

Facinating analyses. I was following the game superficially, never suspecting white having serious winning chances. Black having the bishop with pawns on each side of the board - an advantage, and the bishop should be strong with most black pawns on the opposide color of the bishop. Still, the damage on the black pawn structure with gxf6 seems to tell stronger in the position.

>Facinating analyses. I was following the game superficially, never suspecting white having serious winning chances.>

That is how it happens when you play against comps. Each time when you see something on your favour you begin to suspect that you miss something about position, since the comps never miss anything.
In time it becomes a bad habit and you begin to hope only that you won't lose.

>Black having the bishop with pawns on each side of the board - an advantage>

This is a prejudice of the theory of chess.
For instance just remember the Mamedyarov-Sokolov last game at Essent.
Sokolov followed the theory's advice when he simplified to a N vs. B with sidepawns endgame. Only to discover later that he could not defend his Qs pawns against Shaka's K+N attack.

Ok I spent a couple of hours more on this develish endgame. My previous suggestion does not work and the whole e3!? idea needs to be discarded in my opinion. The winning line is:

30.Kf3!! b5 31.e3 Bc5 32.Ke2 e4 33.Kd2 Kg6 34.Kc3 Kg5 35.Nc7 Kg4 36.Nxb5 Kf3 37.Kc4 Bb6 38.Nd4+ Kxf2 39.Nxf5 Kf3 40.Kd5 Bxe3 41.Nh4+ Kg4 42.Kxe4 Bd2 43.a4 Ba5 44.Nf5 h5 45.Ne3+ Kh3 46.Kf3 Kxh2 47.Ng2 Kg1 48.Nf4 Kf1 49.Nxh5 Ke1 50.Ke3 Bb6+ 51.Kd3 51...f5 52.Ng7 Kf2 53.Nxf5 Kf3 54.Kc4 Ba5 55.Kb5+- Bc3 56.Ne7!! Kxg3 57.Nd5 Be1 58.Nb4+-

I will paste full analysis on my site later.

Anyone, let me know if you find a refutation!

That's just a transposition to the main line of 30.e3 after just two moves and doesn't appear to have any independent value. The king isn't going anywhere from f3 without e3.

Ofcourse you're right Mig. Got carried away there for a moment. Ok my last try for a contribution in you're main line:

38.Ng2 Bc5 39.Kc2 h5 40.Kb3 Bd6 41.Kc4 Bf8 42.Kd5 Be7 43.Kc6! Bf6 44.Kd6 Kg6 45.Nh4+ Kg5 46.Kd7 Be5 47.Ke7 f4 48.exf4+ Bxf4 49.Kxf7 Bb8 50.Ng2 Ba7 51.Ne3 h4 52.gxh4+ Kxh4 53.Ke6 Kxh3 54.Ke5 Bc5 55.Kxe4 Kh4 56.f4+-

forgive my patzer-induced ignorance. I'm just not sure I understand the question here: Are we using Rybka/Junior to find out whether there exists a continuation that would lead to something that, 20 moves down the line, would have been evaluated as "winning" by a human?

I was watching the game live on the LetsPlayChess server and was rooting for 30. f3 soon after Rb5 was played. In contrast to some of the other kibitzers, I posted that the Rook exchange (HUGE error by DF) made White's task much easier and I expected 1-0. I was genuinely surprised by Kramnik's 31.h3 and gave it a ??

I have some recent experiences in winning these Knight vs. Bishop endings in cc and know how to plan them.

In general, Kramnik played Fritzi the way that I would. End-game territory should hold few fears for the GM and Fritz has real weaknesses there.



Here is the most recent Knight beats Bishop game.

Black did very well until 51... Rd6, but he was done for by then anyway by the twin threats of Nf4 and Nd5 then b5 if the Bishop went to d5.

[White "Ceri"]
[Black "Crapov"]
[Result "1-0"]
[Termination "Black resigned"]
[WhiteElo "3124"]
[BlackElo "2865"]
[Mode "ICS"]
[DateLastMove "2006.11.15"]
[ECO "D17"]
[Board "1566365"]

1.Nf3 d5 2.c4 c6 3.d4 Nf6 4.Nc3 dxc4 5.a4 Bf5 6.Ne5 Nbd7 7.Nxc4 Qc7 8.g3 e5 9.dxe5 Nxe5
10.Bf4 Rd8 11.Qc1 Bd6 12.Nxd6+ Qxd6 13.Bg2 O-O 14.O-O Rfe8 15.Qe3 Qd4 16.a5 Qxe3 17.Bxe3 a6 18.Bg5 Nc4 19.Ra4 Be6 20.Rb4 Nd6 21.e3 h6
22.Bxf6 gxf6 23.Rc1 Kg7 24.Na4 Nb5 25.Nc5 Re7 26.h4 f5 27.Bf3 Kg6 28.Kf1 Bc8 29.Be2 Kf6
30.Ke1 Rd5 31.Bf3 Rd8 32.Rd1 Rxd1+ 33.Kxd1 Re5 34.Nd3 Re7 35.Rf4 Rd7 36.Kc2 Rd8 37.Nc5 Ke7 38.Be2 Nc7 39.Bc4 Ne6 40.Bxe6 fxe6 41.Rd4 Rd5 42.b4 e5 43.Rd3 e4 44.Rd4 Rd6 45.Kc3 Rg6
46.Rd1 Rg8 47.Kc4 h5 48.Rd2 Rf8 49.Na4 Rf7
50.Nc3 Rf6 51.Ne2 Rd6 52.Rxd6 Kxd6 53.g4 Be6+ 54.Kd4 hxg4 55.h5 Bf7 56.h6 Bg8 57.Nf4 Bh7
58.Nh5 Ke7 59.Kc5 {Black resigned} 1-0

BTW, for historical reasons, the ELO ratings are too high. It will take some time for the ratings to drift downwards to a point where the ratings are in line with the true performance of the ICCF boys and girls.



Ceri Evans - wow, haven't heard that name for a while. If that's you Doc, I tip my hat to a New Zealand legend...

Since a lot of people feel that having a bishop over a knight is an advantage in most endgames, it's worth pointing out that most GMs would not do that exchange unless they believed they had an advantage of another sort, either through pawn structure or piece placement or initative. Today was a good example of the side with bishop not having an advantage.

Sorry, I am a Welsh one - although I admire their current rugby side!



> Black having the bishop with pawns on each side of the board - an advantage, and the bishop should be strong with most black pawns on the opposide color of the bishop.

The misundertanding is two-fold. It's not just that the doubled pawn is a serious weakness. The key is perhaps that the pawn structure is balanced on both wings so that there is no realistic chance of play revolving around passed pawns being pushed on opposite wings. The definite strength of the bishop is when there is play on opposite wings.

So it is invevitable that sooner or later the pawn structure is either blocked or that white is allowed to place his pawns favorably.

Once the position is blocked, then only white has the potential to invade with knight and king.

The black pawn weakness could be close to being the second weakenss necessary for a white win (usually in endgames the superior side needs two weaknesses in the opponents position to force a win).

The question of whether the pawns are on the same color or opposite color as the bishop is less relevant in the short term manoevering. Being on the opposite color means that they are also undefended, so that isn't a solution in itself for black.

When white places his pawns on black squares either that is only in transition to a white square or only if the blocked position leaves the black pawns vulnerable.

Incidentally, the reason this works against computers is that in the absence of any tactical considerations they tend to advance their pawns.

I have feeling that a human defender as black would have strongly avoided ...e5, knowing full well that it might later lead to a blockaded position with the white knight on d5

Kasparov's analysis shows a win with 30 e3 as follows: 30 ...Bc5 31 Kf3 and now f6 loses straightforwardly to 32 ke2 and the king gets to c4 and its over [see chessbase]so black must try 31...b5 32Ke2 e4 [else K gets to d3]33 Kd2 white would like his kb3 then win b pawn by Nc3-d5xb4 but too slow in some lines.33 ..Kg6 [Bd6 or Kh6 make no difference]34 Nc7 seesm to win by creating a path for th white king to invade along the white squares and blockading the k side [it seems 34 with Kd3 there is no win Kg5 [Bd6 is too slow]35 Nc7 Kg4 [35.. b4 is another try]36 Nxb5 Kf3 37Kc4 Bb6 38 Nd4 [or d6]Kxf2 39Nxf5 Bxe3 [Kf3 transposes after Kd5] 40 Kd5 Kf3 41 Nh4+ Kg4 42 Kxe4 and this reaches and endgame study type of position white aims to shepeard the a pawn home using his knight to block the bishop but white can't make it here is a sample line: 42 ... Bd2 43 a4 h5 [lots of possibilities here but Kh3 would lose after 44Nf3 and Ng5+] 44 Ng2 f5+ 45 Ke5 h4 46 Nxh4 f4 47 gxf4 Bxf4+ 48 Ke4 Bxh2 49 Nf3 Bc7 and white cannot set the covering position with the knight so Kasparov analysis looks like the only way 34 Nc 7 [instead of 34 Kc3] b4 35 Nd5 Kg5 36 h3 and now black is doomed the white king wil zig zag along the white squares to e7 and black cannot defend eg h6 37 Nf4 Bd6 38 Kc2 h5 39 Ng2 Bc5 40 Kb3 Bd6 41 Kc4 this is beyond the comps vision. What a superb and instructive victory that would have been

It is kind of sad seeing that the computer does not evaluate bishop vs. knight endings well. 18... Kf8??
(18... Bxf3!)

While sadder in that with the time advantage Kramnik missing 30. e3 and the subsequent winning endgames.

I guess it is the human tiredness that contributed to the draw most of all. Yet, if Kramnik can manage the same with white again, he stands a chance. Today he has black. Let us see what develops!

"It is kind of sad seeing that the computer does not evaluate bishop vs. knight endings well. 18... Kf8??
(18... Bxf3!)"

It's not the computer, it's the program. Rybka 2.2 had no problems assessing 18...Kf8 as a mistake due to 19.Ne1, leaving white with some advantage.

Rybka would also have avoided 24...Rd5? (playing easily instead the correct 24...a5), as well as 28...Kg7? (28...Bd4 offered black good drawing chances), and finally Rybka easily finds 30.e3.

From move 14 until move 30, Kramnik had practically played identically to Rybka, with only some insignificant differences in exchanging order and rook activation. At move 30, Kramnik was apparently out of Rybka book ;-)

The point is, this was not a typical showing of computer-weakness in certain endgames, but only a demonstration of Fritz 10 evaluation and search problems.

The curious thing is that on the one hand 30 a4 looks so useless – why would you want to stop …b5, when you can force the pawn to b4 where it’s easier to get it and obstructs the bishop more, and on the other e3 and so forth is so amazingly thematic, at any rate to the patzer mind – you have to be able to keep the pawn on g3 since otherwise Black can make trouble on the kingside via h4 while the king’s away, and that means keeping the bishop away from f2/g3, which means you have to play e3. It's typical of this sort of Catalan ending - like Seirawan said, there's plenty of Andersson and Ribli games showing this theme. It’s almost as if Kramnik was affected by that lack of confidence which is one of the big problems of playing against computers – as if he were worried about making the king-side pawns vulnerable while the king was away (which is true of course; if you get it wrong somehow it’s probably more likely to be fatal if the pawns are on dark squares). I’m sure that’s a superficial assessment, but that’s the impression it creates. If you paired any GM against a 2300 opponent on ICC I reckon they’d play e3 in blitz, and probably win too, even if the ‘2300 opponent’ were in fact Fritz himself.

Strange too that Kramnik should say afterwards he wasn't sure where he'd gone wrong - well obviously not, of course, but you'd think he'd mention this plan and why he rejected it.

I guess its so easy to be wise after the event its true that the winning ,method complied with that old dictum in the end game "dont rush" optimise pieces (often the king) and avoid unnecessary pawn moves unless you really need to make them. Still i think kramnik played beautifully to have a winning position. It could be a very expensive miss......

3...b5?! Is that a move - any QGA mavens like to comment?

Kramnik seems to have got again some advantage
in the opening (at move 15)..but the Qs are still on board so it may be worth to watch this time

Oh come now, Ovidiu, worth watching a Kramnik game? Surely not.

I must say Freud would love you. I forget what Fine said exactly about players who think the game’s only interesting with queens on – something unflattering about breastfeeding, I think – but I’m sure you’d have made a fine subject for his couch.

Up to now it seems promising. Somehow Kramnik delayed the c5 break followed by general exchange of everything.
It may cost him 1/2 point however.

Well, I only enjoy playing when queens are on the board. But that applies only to my own play; I don't presume to call others' games boring because queens are off.

Anyway Ovidiu passed up a chance for some insight into our subject (as usual), by proclaiming that Kramnik always tries to get the queens off, no matter who the opponent is. This is plainly not true of his style against human opposition (Berlin Wall notwithstanding). However, Kramnik did adopt such a style against Fritz in portions of the Bahrain match.

In at least one of those games he went out of his way to trade queens early, quite intentionally giving up a chance for objective opening advantage in order to achieve that goal. I think that was the game he won with meticulous technique in a R+P ending with equal pawns but a more active Rook; naturally Fritz didn't find the best defensive plan of sacking a pawn to activate its own Rook.

Bottom line, it was a clear instance of anti-computer strategy that paid off. But Ovidiu's one-track, details-don't-matter/I-only-see-the-big-picture style is designed to forestall any possibility of such insights.


Kramnik style doesn't always work, after all you don't play chess alone. That is why not all (100%) of Kramnik's games are Q-less r very simplfied. He has to play Topalov, to play now and then with black and so on.

However you still somehow conclude that my characterization of his (his-emphasis added) style is "plainly not true".

It isn't that a subjective matter but I don't intend to use databases and statistics only to prove you my point. You may want to recall the recent comp study of WCs which also found that Kramnik's games are, after Capa's, the most simplified.

Did I say ‘plainly not true’? I’m sure Kramnik is much more inclined to exchange queens early than, say, Kasparov or Topalov. But it’s a long way from that to the sort of ‘every game is dull, boring, drawish’, etc. nonsense you keep coming out with.

Anyway, 19…Qc6, 20 Qh5!? We’re going to see something more akin to your taste, I suspect. I assume from …Qc6 Kramnik reckons he’s got time to take on a4, and Fritz is going to need to rely on some kingside threats to defend c5 after that.

well yes, this game is "to my taste" and I am following it, however I attribute it more to Fritz's style than to Kramnik's.

oh my god, " I am a professional"

he must have thought that his K was in g8, or something

I think it is a great idea to publish these chess moves on the internet, but how about if u arrange some downloadable chess games to your url?

Twitter Updates

    Follow me on Twitter



    About this Entry

    This page contains a single entry by Mig published on November 25, 2006 9:57 PM.

    Kramnik-Fritz Chatter was the previous entry in this blog.

    Kramnik-Fritz 06 g2 is the next entry in this blog.

    Find recent content on the main index or look in the archives to find all content.