Sonofapreacherman
User
Newbie
| Posts: 6 |   |
Karma: 0
|
endgame analysis question - 2007/01/15 03:39
In the game Khaskelman-Grechanovskaya, Kiev 1999, the following position arose after Black's 20th move:
W: Kd2, Rf1, Be3, Pa2,b2,c2,e4,f2,h2
B: Ke7, Rh8, Nd7, Pa7,b4,e5,g7,h7
The next few moves were quite curious to me:
21.Rd1 a6 22.Ke1 Rc8 23.Rd5 Rc6.
At first glance I couldn't fathom why White allowed, and Black declined to play, 23...Rxc2. After a deeper look, I see things are not so simple; nevertheless, I don't see anything decisive for White after
23...Rxc2, and Black's position did collapse rather quickly after the game continuation (see the end of this post). Here's my analysis of
23...Rxc2. Am I missing something, or are the end positions of my analysis better for White than I think?
Note that White cannot force Black into line (B1b) below. White can go for line (A1b) with the bishop back on c1 stopping the passer, or can give Black the choice of lines (B1a) or (B2). In the latter lines, if
Black eventually chooses to jettison the a6-pawn and activate her rook on the kingside, as happened in the game continuation, White will be left with just one passed pawn on the queenside, not three! (See the game position after White's move 30.)
23...Rxc2
(A) 24.Ra5 Rxb2 [24...Rc6? 25.Ra4]
-(A1) 25.Kd1 b3! 26.a4 Rc2 27.Rxa6 Rc4.
---------
How is it that little children are so intelligent and men so stupid? It must be education that does it.
Popular posts by Sonofapreacherman
Grandmasters tombs: locations?
CM 9000
|
post new topic
))