No. 93 - (Vol. VI)

AUGUST 1988

FUN WITH FIVE!

It's not surprising that White wins thisposition. White has a queen, Blackjust has two knights, one of which ispinned, and the two knights are widelyseparated. Moreover there are noblack pawns to create any threats. Sowhat is the point of publishing this po-sition - and on EG's front page? Well,would it seem more interesting if Whi-te were to lose? 1. Qe6 Sd3 is check-mate. OK, a fluke. Well, where wouldyou move the queen? You'll find thatthere is no good move at all. So, if wecan't move the queen, we move thewhite king.Where to? There's not just one goodsquare, there's just one legal square -f2. But this allows Se4+; - the whiteking moves (to e3, say) and then Sc3;linking all the black forces together,gaining yet another tempo by the at-tack on the white queen, and - dra-wing. (For the sceptic: 1. Kf2 Se4+ 2.Ke3 Sc3 3. Qa8 bSdl + ! 4. Kd4 Se2 +

5. Kc4 Sb2+ 6. Kb4 Sd3 + , whenBlack has substantially improved hisposition and is still checking.)

Our opening words were that Whitewins. That was no lie. So he does - butonly if it's Black's move.

Start again, with Black to play. If Kclthen Qb3 wins or checkmates fast. ButBlack does better to play the g3 knightto e4, with the linking-up plan we lear-ned from considering White to movefirst. We expect this to be tough. Whi-te replies 2. Qa8! (Ke2??) when Kd3;Qb7! Sc4; Qd5 + , wins a knight! SoBlack plays 2. ..., Sd3+ 3. Ke2 Sc3 +4. Ke3, as planned. But it now transpi-res that something is different. Blackhas a check all right (4. ..., Sdl +) butafter 5. Kd4 there are no more checks,and whatever Black's next is, it's Whi-te who will have a free move (despiteBlack having started - there's food forthought). This free move is enoughfor White to prevent Black setting upthe defence he did before. We try 5...., Sb2 6. Qg2-f (this move is usefulin other lines) 6. ..., Kb3 7. Kd4, andstandard squeezing technique willsoon put an end to Black's resistance.

Show all your chess friends what theyare missing by not subscribing to EG!

417

HOW TO PLAY THE GBR CLASS0023 ENDGAME

PART 4

(For Parts 1, 2 and 3 see EG83 and EG84)

1. Abbreviations, Definitions andSymbols (where not defined in con-text).

box: a two-by-two block of four squa-res, the white pair controlled by a lightB, the black pair controlled by a darkB. The box consisting of squares c4,c5, d4, d5 is shortened to cd45.

box-valve: see EG84, pp65-66.

*C* Position or play originating froma data base generated by programmedalgorithm using a computer. Cf. *H*.

dbz: 'double-barrelled zugzwang' - seeEG84 pp65-66. (There are no literalzugzwangs in this endgame.)

depth: the remaining number of Wmoves (after the last move played) in aan optimal sequence by W and Bl totransfer (by capture or promotion or,in the algorithm of Ken Thompson, apawn move) to another won endgame(or checkmate). Synonym: solutiondepth.

exit: see EG84, pp65-66.

*H* Human, i.e. fallible, position orplay. Cf. *C*.

K&H: the family of GBR class 0023

defensive positions due to Kling andHorwitz (1851), where S occupies b7 org7 or b2 or g2, and its K denies accessto the attacker's K. We refer tob2K&H, etc. See EG84, p67.

optimal: an optimal W move is a movethat reduces the depth by one. An op-timal Bl move maintains the depth un-altered. Hence 'optimal play'., 'optimalsolution', and 'optimality'. Hence also'equi-optimaP, applied to a W or Blmove in a position where there is morethan one optimal move; and 'sub-opti-mal', applied to either a W move thatincreases the depth, or a Bl move thatreduces the depth.

phase: see EG74 pp218-219.

signpost: a pattern holding significancefor a chessplayer searching for a goodmove. In this definition a signpost isdistinct from a move. In our state ofknowledge in 1988 a signpost is a *H*concept with no *C* equivalent. Ma-chine representation of human con-cepts and useful patterns is still at thelevel of basic research.

2. Tactical Motifs and Signposts

The meat of this 5-phase endgame is inits fourth phase, considered here. Pha-se 4 starts with one of the four success-ful exits from a 'K&H' and ends with

418

the defending king (and possiblyknight as well) about to be confined toa corner region. The length of Phase 4varies, but is about 24 moves, fromdepth 40 to about depth 17. This phaseis a real challenge, but it conceals greatbeauty as well as great subtlety. We stilldo not know all the answers, but weshall describe here, for the first time,what both sides should be thinkingabout. To implement the strategic con-cepts listed later we must first look atsome basic tactics and signposts. Toeconomise on space, instead of numbe-ring moves we give initial depth anddepth at termination. In all examplesof *C* play every equi-optimal move isindicated.

Signposts and short-term tactical mo-tifs in (all phases of) this endgame areillustrated from a sample of optimalplay from Phase 4. To ease subsequentreference, motifs and signposts may begiven distinctive names. Most diagramsin our first sample (Rl) show positionsthat do not arise in the main line, sincethe opposing side's main line play,being optimal, avoids them.In what follows the main line is in boldtype.

Signposts: squinting bishops c7f7. PlayBc7-b6 or Bc7-g3 or Bf7-g6 or Bf7-b3and they still squint - in fact the onlyother such squares on the board are c2and f2.

k!2 Kd4

Motifs: pin, pin-crucifix

R3 main line WTM

Signpost: bK blocks bS at one S-moveremove.

Kg3 Sf5 +Kf4 Se7.

Motif: edge-domination,example.

Be6, for

419

as 8<5+ WTM

Motif: fork

R6 Bb6+ WTM

Motif: box cd45

Bb6+ Kd3Ke5 8e6+.

R7 B<5 WTM

Motif: edge-domination Be5 (and ma-ny others, but beware of Bd4? Sd6;Bg6 +, Kc4;).

.8 Kd6 (00< KdS) WTM

Motif: S-check avoidance.

Kd6 5d4.

R9 ..5 WTM

Motifs: domination and checking-crucifix and box.

Kd5 5e2.

RIO ,n" &2 WTM

Signposts: bK-tied-to-bS, allowing Wto improve B-position(s) with gain-of-time check(s). Sometimes, as in the

420

preamble to the chivvy-tease sequenceseen later, a short series of checks willdrive bK from the centre. The result ofthis ending hangs by such a fine hairthat one square more or less can be cri-tical.

Bg6+ Kd2.

after bKc3

main line

Bl threatens Sf4+. Two moves sug-gest themselves: Ke4 and Be3. Which isbetter? The trouble with Be3 is the re-ply Kb3; when Sc3( + ); will follow andBl will probably set up a K&H on b2(on c3 bS can reach b2 via a4 or dl ,and there is usually no way W can con-trol both these squares). This is a sign-post. So wKe4 is best.

Ke4 Sc3 + .

Signposts: bS blocks bK; the square e3must be covered and wBb6 must befreed (if Kd4, Se2 + ; Kc4, Sf4;); thebox cd23 (after Ba5). All point to Kf3as the move.

Kf3 Sb5Ba5+ Kcl.

R14 main line

S-capture after Se2; Ba5 + , Kdl; Be8,Sd4 + ; Ke4 is not too difficult.

Signposts: bK on edge near corner andconfined by W pieces (all three activein this sense), a K&H position is remo-te, wK can approach to tighten the net,bS confined or passive. Therefore -end of Phase 4.

Ke3 Kb2Bf7Kc2Be8 Sc3Kd4 - depth now 15.

3. Concepts for Attack and Defence

The Phase 4 play from EG74, p.217,the first published full-length optimalsolution, which had no annotations,

421

will be used to illustrate attacking anddefensive concepts. The parent sequen-ce can be dubbed 'standard' to distin-guish it from other Phase 4 sequences,named or unnamed.

..., Sc5 (Kd7).An optimal sequence from Kd7 will befound later.Bd5 Se6 (Sd7)Ke4 Sc5 +Kf5.

..., Kf4Ke2 Kf5Bc2+ Ke6Bb3+ Kd6 (Kf5)Bf2.Threatening Kf3 or Bg3 + ...., Sf4 +Ke3 Se6.Sd5 -f ; Kd4, only forces wK to take uplonged-for residence in the centre,whereupon bS has to retreat again.The text Se6 delays wK's advance.On the other hand the drawback ofSe6 is that W now takes advantage ofbK being tied to defending bS - a tacti-cal motif.Bg3+ Ke7.This is a valuable moment to takestock. wBB create a de56 2x2 box whe-re bK cannot live. But the importantdefensive characteristic for Bl is hisfreedom of choice: to set up a g7K&H;to move towards a b7K&H; or to ho-ver between the two, leaving W to pro-ve a win. Crude forcing moves at thispoint will merely drive Bl to take up aK&H.Be5.Preventing both bKf6 and bSg7: ag7K&H is ruled out.

A memorable picture.

..., Sd7.This is a crucial moment in W's plan-ning. Since Bl can attain neither a g7nor a b7K&H he naturally adopts thenext best policy - hovering between thetwo. In fact Bl is 'equidistant in time'from both: with W force ignored Blcan adopt either defensive formation(setting the win back some 15 moves)in 4 consecutive moves. This conceptof 'distance from a K&H' is a simplerule-of-thumb to check W's progressin Phase 4 - if the figure falls to 3 or 2without drastic corrective action W isnot just standing still but going back-wards. So, how does W proceed?Firstly, apart from wBe5 being en pri-se, wBB in the centre impede wK. Ofcourse, wBB must continue to preventany K&H, but that will not win. Whatshould be their manoeuvres from thisposition? The answer lies in the con-cept of the advancing box: the de56box must be dismantled and replacedby a de67 box. To make this quiteclear place wBb3 and wBg3(squinting): there is now a de56 box.To make a de67 box wBB must ex-change flanks. This is the simple expla-nation of 'mysterious' moves like Bel

422

and Bdl. We must realise, though,that this re-formed, farther-up-the-board, box is not necessarily going tooccur in the main line play supplied bythe computer, which gives us the bestmoves - and nothing but the best mo-ves.Bf4 (Bd4, g3) Sb6.Until one is thoroughly familiar withthis ending bS can be a confoundednuisance attacking one wB, then theother, and checking.Bf3 Sc4Ke4 Sd6 +Kd5 Sf7.

The K&H distance is still 4, but bS isnow slightly off-centre and forced tooscillate between f7 and d8, whereaswK is now both powerfully poised andimpervious to checks. This is progress.But it leads nowhere unless wBB canadopt active and mutually cooperativeroles.

Bdl (Bc7, e2, e4).This maintains wB's freedom of move-ment on the K-side and also preparesBa4. Bc7 last move looks like a diffe-rent plan, but consider Bc7, Kd7; Bg3,and W has usefully tempoed an impro-vement in his position, Bh4 now beingan option whereas Bg5 was not...., Kf6Bc2 Sg5.

This threatens (if Bg3, for instance)Se6 for a g7K&H. But g5 is now bloc-ked for bK.Be5+ Ke7Bg3 (Bc3).Again, Bc3 may look like a differentplan, but both moves have the squareel in common, a square that shouldnot surprise us. On el wB is ready tojump left (a5) or right (h4)...., Se6.Once more on the brink of a g7K&H.Ke5.But now bKf7 and Sg7 can each bemet by Bb3. Our friends the squintingwBB are back.

..., Sd8.Bl still hovers! Why should he not?There is poison, too, for Sc6+ is athreat.Bel.Not just the regrouping we expected,but meeting the threat just mentioned...., Sf7+.So Bl naturally takes the other check.The fact that after Sc6+; Kd5, thesquare b4 is covered by wBel while e7is occupied by bK is no accident.Therein lies a tiny piece of the beautyof the winning play.Kd5 Sh8 (Sh6).

But why not Sd8; asked IGM Benkoreasonably, giving Sh8 two questionmarks? The somewhat unhelpful ans-wer is that the computer will notchoose to play a Bl move that it'knows' leads to a quicker loss, even ifthe difference in depth is no more thana single move. We have already explai-ned W's plan (in human terms, for thedata base has no plan) to advance thebox, but by definition Bl will avoidthis if he has better. Trusting the com-puter as we do, we know that Sd8; lo-ses faster than either Sh8; or Sh6;, sothe only question is, how? At thispoint we lack the computer's help,with only one ply published: Bdl, - gi-ven two generous exclamation marksby IGM Benko. We propose the follo-wing continuation:

423

(*C* Sd8, Bdl,) *H*.Sf7; Bh4+, Kd7; Bg4 + , Kc7; Kc5,Sd8; Bg3 + , Kb7; Kd6, Kb6; Bf2 + ,Kb5; Bd7+, Kb4; Be8, Sb7 + ; Kd5,well into Phase 5. (Consider now Sd8;Bh4, Sb7; Bc6. Or Ka5; Kc6, Sd8 + ;Kd7, Sb7; Kc7. There remain onlybKabc3; which we leave as a studentexercise. The student should not over-look the possibility of delivering check-mate without capturing bS. Checkmateis something deeper and more complexthan a tactical motif and somethinglooser than a strategic aim - but it oc-curs frequently enough in sidelines inPhases 4 and 5.)After Sh8 we are depth 18.Bh4 + Kf7Kd6 Sg6Bb3+.The end is in sight.

4. Specimen Optimal Lines of Play

The foregoing concepts are intended toassist in illuminating further examplesof optimal Phase 4 play. Of course, wedo not claim that they will suffice toexplain every Phase 4 optimal move.In order to stimulate, but not over-whelm, the student, we offer now,with minimal comment, six shortersamples of Phase 4 play, selected fortheir difficulty, frequency of occurren-ce, and, we dare claim, beauty. Theyconceal new patterns, which the stu-dent is invited to christen in the privacyof his own mind - please do not sendsuggestions to AJR!

4.1 R18

Off-shoot from standard

Bd5 Kb4 (Sd3)Bel+ Ka3Bc3 Sa4Bd4 (Bg7) Kb4Ke5 (Bf7) Sc5Be3(Bf7) Sd3 + (Sb3)Kd4 Sc5

Bc4(Bf7)Sb3 +Kd5 Kc3

B « ( B b 5 , f6 +Bd8Sd2(Kb4)Ba5 + Kc2Bb5 Sf3Ke4Sd2 +Ke3 Sb3Ba4 (Bb4) Kb2Bb4 SclKd2 Sa2Bd6 (Be7) Sc3Be5Ka3Bd7 - depth 11.

R18

Sb3

WTM

depth 33

4.2

WTM

sequence.

depth 38

Ba2 Sd7Bg7 Kd6Kd4 Kc6Bd5+ Kb6Kc4 Kc7

Sc5 (Kb6)

424

Be5+ Kd7Kd4 (Kc4Bg3) Se6 +Ke4Sc5+ (Sc7)Kf5.

R20 BTM

The position is a 'twin' with R16, butthe continuation is different. bKobstructs d7 for bS and for that veryreason we expect bKe7 to be the com-puter's choice. It isn't...., Sa4Bf3 (Kf6Be4, g3) Sb6Kf6 (Bc3,g3) Sc4Bg3 Sd2Bd5 SblKe5 (Kf5Bf4) Sa3 (Sc3)Bh4 (Be4,f3,f2,f4) Sb5Bf3 Sc7Bf2 - depth 20 (dbz).

4.3.1

R21 BTM

depth 40

The two bS checks are equi-optimal...., Sd6+ (Sg7 + )Kg5 Ke6Bb3 + Kd7

Bd5 Sb5Kf6.The natural but hasty Bg3 is cruellypunished by (*H*) Sc3; Bf3, Ke6; Bel,Sd5; - Phase 2!..., Kd6Be6 Kc6Ke5 Sd6Bd8 Sb7Cf. EG84 p.68 not a K&H.Bd5+ Kd7Bb6 Sd8Bg2 Sc6.+Kd5 Se7 +Kd4 Kd6 (Sf5 +)/i For once we have a complete *C*annotation!Bc5+ Ke6Ke4 (Bh3 +) Sg8 (Kfl)Bh3 + Kf7Bfl Se7Bc4+ Kf6Bd4 + Kg5Bb6 (Bc3) Sf5Ke5 Sh4Ba5 Sg6 +Ke4 Sf8 (Sh8)Bd8 + Kg6Bh4 Sd7 (Sh7)Bb5 Sf6 + (Sf8)Ke5 Sh7(Sg4+, g8)Bd3+ Kg7(Kh6)Kf5 Sf8Bc4 - depth 11.

4.3.2

BTM

depth 28

BTM e5c7g2 b5b4 depth 28

425

i) From 4.3.J. The position is in a re-flected form, to give the student essen-tial practice in pattern recognition!

Kd4 Sb4Bfl + Kc6Bg3 Sc2 +Ke5 Kc5 (Sa3)Bh4 Kb4Ke4 Kc3 (Kb3Sa3)Ba6 (Be2) Kd2 (Sb4)Bc8 Kc3 (Sal,a3,b4,el)Be6 Kd2Bd8 Sal (Sa3)Ba5 + Kc2Ke3 Sb3Bf5+ - depth 15.

4.4R23 BTM

depth 38

The double-barrelled exitafter 28. Be5 in EG74 p220.

... Sa4Bg6 + Kb3Kill Kc4Bg3 (Bh7 + ,h2) Sb6.There now follows a sequence we havenick-named "chivvy-tease" becausewBB prod and lead bK first towards,and then away from, the b7K&H. bKis also taken farther from wK, to W'snet gain of time.Bf7 + Kc5Bf2 + Kc6

Be8 + Kc7Kd3 Sd7Bg3 + Kd8Bf7 Ke7Bc4 Kf6Ke4 Ke7The EG74 and EG75 (Ofer Comay)data bases agree on the depth here -27. But EG75 (p250, col.l) choosesbKg6 (literally, 40. ..., Kf2), while theThompson data base gives no equi-optimal. W therefore wins at least onemove faster against bKg6 - the move is'sub-optimaF. Having nothing but thepublished evidence to work from wecan come no closer to pin-pointing adifference between the two data bases.(See EG80, p428.)Ba2 (Bel) Sc5 +Kd5 Se6Bb3 Kf6Be5 + Ke7Bc3 Sg5Bc2 (Ba4,c4,dl) Sf3Ba5 (Bd3) Sg5Bd3 (Bel) Sf7.Depth 19.The last 3 W moves skirting round thedbz are, I suggest, more difficult forthe human W.

4.5WTM

depth 35

In this case we reproduce the com-ments made (on 26.vii.85) by AJRwithin seconds of the computer's pre-ceding move or list of equi-optimals.

426

Eel. "The discovered checks are temp-ting, but both misplace wK and encou-rage bK to take advantage of wK ha-ving committed himself. Note that sin-ce kK move at the same speed it is im-portant that the opponent commitshimself first."..., Se4+ "bS is in the way of bK(Kd7? Bd5) so Bl 'gains time' by chec-king, but in the same breath loses timesince wK crosses the board with tem-po."Kf5 Sc5. "Sd6+;, apart from re-locking bK, advances W's cause by se-veral moves because of Ke5; Sf7 + ;Kd5, and we have a distant dbz withwBB well placed."Bdl (Bd5) Kd6Bf3 Sd3. "This is strong Be4, with abox-valve, is not possible while wBel isattacked - but it is not as strong as ab7K&H, now remote again."Bc3 "I had strongly favoured Bg3 + ,as the retort Kc5; blocks that squarefor bS and therefore encourages thepursuit-move Ke4. I do not under-stand this wBc3 move yet (but on anti-b2K&H diagonal)."..., Kc5Bf6. "A beautiful new pattern has justhit me: Sc5; Bb4, is a box, and Bf6,Kc4; Be2, is a chameleon echo box.Both crucifixes, of course "..., Kd6 (Scl)Bg7 Kc5 (Kc7). "The double effect ofW's last is seen: wB is better placed,and Bl is forced to relinquish his cen-tral placement."Ke4. "Obvious and strong. Takes ad-vantage of bK stopping Sc5 + ."..., Sb4Bf8+ Kc4Be7 (Be2 + ). "A puzzling case of oneforcing and one waiting move, bothbeing optimal."

..., Sa2Be2+ Kc3. "Kb3; Kd3, Sc3; Bh5, isOK for W."Bh5 (Bb5, fl, g4) Sb4Bf6+ Kd2Be8 (Bf7, g4, g6) Sc2

Bf7 Sb4.Bd8 Kc2Ke3. "A dbz. No more analysis nee-ded." Depth 18. The complete machi-ne session took 45 minutes of elapsedtime.

4.6

A hypothesis is that the total numberof recognisably distinct Phase 4 opti-mal patterns is not large. We hazard aguess at 20 partial sequences, to be lin-ked together in various ways. Our rea-soning is based on the observation thattransposition, especially when wBB arebeing re-grouped, is common, andmove-inversion of a pair of equi-optimal W moves also occurs. But wecould well be wildly wrong. Our finalexample displays distinctly odd beha-viour co-existing with optimality inPhase 4 and serves a warning againstoverconfidence in claiming to under-stand this endgame.

R25

depth 39

Bf2 Sa5Bg3+ Kb6Kd7 Sc4Bf2+ (Bh5) Kb5Bh5 Se5 +Kd6 Sd3.A consequence of this at first sight sur-prising invitation to pin (Be2? Kc4;Bel, Kd4; - ??) is that wBB will no

427

longer be squinting, but what onemight call 'glaring' down the long dia-gonals. Such an 'aspectual conversion'is rare.Bd4 (Bh4) Kc4Bf6 Sf4Bf3.Although Bl is well centralised thedepth is only 30. The cd34 box is ephe-meral...., Kd3Bc6 Kc4 (Sh3)Bb7 Kb3 (Kd3)Bf3.The light wB was here 3 moves ago,and wK has not moved, nor has thedark wB...., Kc2Be4+ Sd3.After the declined invitation to pin, arare voluntary selfpin.Kd5 Kd2Kd4 SelBg6(Bc6, d5, f5)Sc2 +Ke4 (Kd5, e5) Sb4.

The dbz looks imminent, but it doesn'tarise in the *C* line. Judging from myexperience with the data base Wshould always spend time creating thedbz, just as he should spend time crea-ting the 90° side-prise K&H exit.Bf5 (Be8, f7. h5) Sc2Be6 (Bh4) Sel (Sb4)Bf7 (Bh4) Sc2We now have the precise positionchristened dbz (EG84, p65, Rl) butwith WTM. In practice a human Wwould be well advised to bring aboutthe familiar dbz, but here the compu-ter shows an optimal win.Bd8 Sa3 (Sal)Ba5 + Kc2Bb4 (Kd5) Sb5Kd5 Sc3 +Kc4 Sa2Ba5 SelBe8 (Be6, h5) - depth 12.

5. Conclusion

Since a data base is accessible only tothose to whom its owner-creator(s)may have entrusted it, and since non-trivial programs to access it in a friend-ly manner are needed, the question ari-ses, how can one practise to improveone's mastery, especially in Phase 4?Suggestions for using the material con-tained in this article are:- to practise the recognition of positi-ons in their rotated and reflectedforms,- to take any *C* sequence and playout unanalysed moves against a humanopponent with whom one changes si-des from time to time.As some compensation for the disad-vantage of the severe difficulty of thisendgame the student will have the ad-vantage of the valuable triple certain-ties that W wins more quickly againstother Bl moves, more slowly (if at all!)with other W moves, and, where a mo-ve is given as equi-optimal, in the samenumber of moves as in the given opti-mal main line. For significantly diffi-cult otb type positions such certaintiesnever existed in the world that prece-ded endgame databases.

428

BLOCKADE YES! FORTRESS NO?Alexandr Manyakhin

The creative impulse started to exertits magic when my attention wasdrawn to the endgame where twoknights confront the strongest chesspiece, the queen. Examples of thisconjunction of force are relativelyrare in the practice of world compo-sition. The first exploitations relateto the middle of the 19th century. Adiligent analysis of these endingsthrew up a significant distinction incomposers' treatment when imple-menting this very rare theme: onegroup strove to achieve success withthe help of the so-called impregnablefortress, while the other relied onimprisonment of the stronger side'sking.The three following studies (Ml,M2, M3) were composed in shortorder.

Ml A. Manyakhin64-Sh. Obozrenie, 1983

8. Sb4+ Kcl 9. bSd3+ Kbl 10.Sb4, drawn.i) Kbl 3. Sd2+ Kcl 4. Sd3+ Kdland 5. Sb2 + , while after 3...Kal 4.Sc2+ with a clear draw.ii) Not 3. Sc5? Qa3+ 4. Kc4 Qcl +5. Kb5 Qg5, winning.iii) Attempting to break out of theblockade threatened by 7. fSd3.

M2 (EG80.5552 quotes a differentsource) 1. Sf3+ Khl 2. Sg4 Qh3 3.Se3. It is now BPs turn. Qe6 4. Ke2Qc6 5. Kf2 Qc5 6. Ke2 Qh5 7. Kf2Qh3. And now W's. But, 8. Ke2 Qg39. Sf5 Qg2 + 10. Ke3 Qh3 11. S5h4,and one blockade has transmutedinto another.The theme in M2 shows a consecutivesynthesis of blockades of bK.

M3 A. ManyakhinSchach, 1986

Ml 1. Sc2+ Ka2 2. Sb4+ Kal/i 3.Sf2/ii Qa3+ 4. Kc4 Qcl + 5. Kb5Qg5 + 6. Ka4 Kb2/iii 7. bSd3 + Kc2

Draw 3 + 2

M3 1. Sf6+ Kh6 2. Sg8+ Kh5(Kg5; Sf3 + ) 3. Sf6+ Kh6 4. Sg8 +Kh7 5. Sf6 + Kh8 6. dSe4 (Sf3?Qf4;) Ogl/i 7. Sd6 Qg5 8. dSe8 Qe59. Kg6 (Kf8? Qe6;) Qc5 10. Kf7(Kh6? Qf5;) drawn,i) Qa7+ 7. Kg6 (Kf8? Qb7; zug-zwang) Qb7 8. Sg5 Qg7 + 9. Kf5Qa7 10. Kg6 Qgl 11. Kh6 Qa7 12.Kg6 Qg7 + 13. Kf5 Qf8 14. Kg6,drawn.The theme in M3 shows a parallelsynthesis of blockades of bK.The conclusion can now be drawnthat the blockade always succeeds ifthe stronger side fails to stalematethe opposing commander.

429

But what is the outcome in cases ofthe fortress type? Here it is up toreaders to supply the answer whenthey have become acquainted withtwo relevant pieces of analysis (M4and M5).

von der LasaHandbuch, 1843

Handbuch, 1843P. Bilguer

sec text 2 + 3

M4 The stipulation reads that BJdraws WTM, the author's solutionrunning: 1. Qe6 Kg7 2. Kf3 Sh7 3.Kg4 hSf8 4. Qd6 Kf7 5. Kg5 Se6 +6. Kh6 Se7, drawn.

However, it is possible to improveon W's play on move 3 with: 3.Qd7 + Kh6 (Kg8; Qd5 + , Kg7;Qb7 + and Kg4) 4. Qd8 Kg7 5. Kg4hSf8 6. Kf5 Kf7 7. Qd5+ Ke7 8.Qb7 + , or Sf6+ 6. Kf5 Sg8 (Sh4 + ;Ke6) 7. Qc7 + S8e7-f 8. Ke6, or Kf76. Od5 + Kg7 7. Qb7 + Kh6 8. Qc7,and the win is no longer difficult.Nor is there salvation by Kh5 5. Kg3Sg5 6. Qdl + Kh6 7. Qd2 Sf8 (Kh5;Qh2 + ) 8. Kg4 fSe6(h7) 9. Kf5, witha win.But surely Bl can play differently?Certainly he can, but alternativesbring him nothing. Consider the fol-lowing: Sh8 3. Kf4 Sf7 4. Qb3 Kg6(Sh6; Ke5) 5. Qg3 + Kh7 6. Kf5. OrSg8 3. Qd7 + S8e7 4. Qc7 Kf8 5.Qb8 + Kf7 6. Kg4, and again thereis no doubt about the win.

The author of M5 claims a drawBTM, with the published line: Sc8 +2. Kc6 Se7+!/i 3. Kb5 Sd6+!/i 4.

Kb6 Kc8 5. Qa7 Kd8 6. Qc7 -f Ke87. Qb8 + (Kc5, Sf7;) Kd7 8. Kc5Sf7, a positional draw. Instead, Wshould play (Manyakhin) 5. Qg4+!Kd8 6. Qe6 Se8/ii 7. Qe5 Kd7 8. Qb5 +Kd8 9. Qd3-f Kc8 10. Qd4 Sc7 11.Od6 eSd5+ 12. Kc6 Kb8 13. Qd8 +Ka7 14. Qf8 and wins,i) ! given by Lasa.ii) Ke8 7. Kc7 Sf7/iii 8. Qe3 Kf8 9.Oc5 Ke8 10. Qb5+ Kf8 11. Qb4 Sh6(Ke8; QbS-h) 12. Kd7 hSf5 13. Qf4Kf7 14. Qg5 Kf8 15. Qf6+ Kg8 16.Ke6, and the win is simple.dSc8+ 7. Kb7 Ke8 8. Kc7 Sa7 9.Od7+ Kf8 10. Kd6 aSc6 11. Ke6.iii) Is Sb5 +; followed by Sd4; betterfor Bl? (AJR)

Now the reader of EG has beforehim the details of my creative excur-sion into the field of two knightsagainst the queen.

Lipetsk, USSR 27.V.88AJR: Just over one page is devotedby Cheron (Vol. Ill, Nos. 1550-1552) to GBR class 1006. We findthe Bilguer (wQc4, l. Qe6), the Lasa(Cheron actually quotes Berger,twins: wQ#3 BTM W wins, andwQa4 as M5), and the MendheimWTM/BTM zugzwang. We believethis EG93 article by A. Manyakhinto be the first time that the Bilguerand Lasa draw claims have beenseriously called in question.

430

GBR class 1006 Zugzwangs by David Hooper

According to Ken Thompson (1985)there are 229 (reciprocal) zugzwangsin this endgame - and these areshown for the first time below. In191 of these bSS mutually guard oneanother, which can be done in 21ways; for two of these (Sa8,c7 andSb8,a6) there are no zugzwangs.(Other classifications are possible;note, for example, the similar arran-gement of pieces in 001,019,033,055,089 and 126.)Almost all these zugzwangs, with thenotable exception of 025 (Mend-heim, 1832) were previously un-known. 072 and 073 occur in theendgame given in EG87 pp. 161-2 af-ter W's moves 10 and 13 respecti-vely. For these two the winning pro-cess BTM takes some 50 moves, wellbeyond the range of any player's vi-sion.For players, a knowledge of zug-zwangs is of considerable impor-tance: if you happen to reach a zug-zwang so that (unfortunately) it is

your turn to move you will lose ahalf-point or even (in exceptionalcases) a full point. The situation isirreversible, and directly affects theresult of the game.You need to have foreknowledge ofzugzwangs, which is easy to acquirefor many endgames; but to remem-ber the 229 zugzwangs of endgame1006 is a daunting and almost im-possible task. Nevertheless, thestudy of the following positions maygive guidance, sufficient, perhaps, toturn the balance in practical play.Composers, too, may also find a usefor some of these zugzwangs. In-deed, there is a foretaste inEG88.6426 (DVH 094 or KT 045).EG readers now have the facts cur-rently available. I can explain nei-ther the endgame nor the zug-zwangs, and abstain from idlespeculation. Let us hope that thecomputer may tell us more or thatsome enthusiastic analyst may yetenlighten the rest of us.

*C* The 229 zugzwangs in GBR class1006 set out in: - DVH (David Hooper) sequence

- KT (Ken Thompson) sequence*C* in DVH sequenceI: self-defending bSS

Type 1 bSa8c7Type 2 bSb8a6 Type 7 Type 10Type 3 014 h8f8 g6c8e7 030 a8 d6 b5d8e6

wKwQ bKbSbS 015 a6d8 c6 031 a8 f5 g7001 e8b6 c8b8c6 016 a6 f6 d5 032 h8d7 c4Type 4 017 a4 e3 d5 033 g8 d6 e8002 g7 h6 e7 b8 d7 Type 8 034 g8 d6 c8003 h8d6 H 018 a8 a7 c7d8b7 035 g8 d5 c7Type 5 Type 9 036 g8 e5 g6004 f8g7 d8c8b6 019 a8 d6 c8d8c6 037 g8 d7 c5005 d4d8 c6 020 a8 c5 a6 038 h6c3 f7Type 6 021 a8 b6 a4 039 a6d7 c5006 h7c5 b7c8d6 022 a8 f6 g8 040 a4e7 d5007 f8c6 d8 023 a8 c5 b3 041 a4 f6 e4008 a6d7 c5 024 a8 f6 g4 042 b6a3 d7009 f8a2 e5 025 a8 c3 e2 043 b6e7 d5010 a6e6 d4 026 h8h7 c8 044 b6f6 e4011 h3g5 d4 027 a4d6 c4 045 g4d6 e4012 a6e5 f7 028 b2d6 c4 Type 11013 f4c6 d4 029 b2f5 c4 046 a8 e7 c8d8f7

047 a8g6 f4048 a8d5 f4049 b4dl c6Type 12050 a2b2 a5b7d6051 h7el f6052 f8 c6 d8053 a4d5 c3054 dlel f6055 b4d7 b6056 b4e6 d4057 f4 f3 c5058 f4a6 c5Type 13059 alc5 b3c7b5060 b8c8 c6061 c4a4 c6062 d3cl d5063 e5b7 c5

431

Type 14064065066067068069070071072073074075076077078

h8d6h8e5g8f2f8e5f8 flcl a4h6c6a5c8a5f2a5c4a4e4f7d4b3c6g4a4f3e5

Type 15079080081082083084085086087088089090

g8d6h6d7h4h5a5d7a5a7a5f5a5elb2c4b6b8c3 c4c4 e7c4f6

Type 16091092093094095096097098099100101

Type102103104J05106107108109110

h8d6h8e7h8d6a7c4a7c4a3d5c8e8c2flf3 e3e3 c6f5 h4

17

hle4hld4a7d5g8f5bla4dlf4a5d6g7e4g3e6

f7c7d5g6g6g6g6d3e7a7c4e3f6f5d4d3d3

e8 c7 e6c5f4c5c4d4f4b7d6b6c6e4

f7d7c5g6f5a5b2c3d6b4f7e5c3

f2d7e5g3b4h6c3d3c4g5g5

111112113114115116117118

b3c3g3d5b5d8b4c3b5a5b5f4c3d4c3d6

Type 18119120121122123124125126127

h8g7h8e6a7d6h4f7h4e6g3b5c6c8d4f7d4g6

_ in

Type iy128 a8c5t in1JU1 D 1

132i 'i i13313413511£1 Joi in13 11 'JO1 JO

140141

142143144145146147148149150151152153154155156157158159

ao uoO l»'7ao vl

c\\ hfctl U1

hlc3hi e4ald5a8d5

al e4o 1 fAai i4

U t A

bl e4hi fAble4bld5f8g7e8b6a4c7a4a6a4d6a4c7a4f4a4b5e8f6e8f4g7d5g3e6g3d5g3d6c3blc3f5

b7e3b7b6c8g6c6e4

h5d7f6f8c4h6f4e4e6d6f4

a6 c6 e5Q

CoA Odo

f2

f2c2e7

f

d2ezb3c3d8c8a6c3c4d3d3d4g4d3e7g5e3c4a6e3

Type 20160161162163164165166167168169170171172173174175176

b8e6

b8d5b8e5f8c6a6d4f8d5f8c6f8 f3f8e7g2a3g2e5g2d4g2d5g6e3c2f4c2e5b4d7

Type 21177178179180181182183184185186187188189190191

II:

192193194195196197198199200201202203

b8e6h7f4b8e5b8d5h7e5b8c2f8c6f8c5h3e5h3e6a6f4f8g4b4b6d3g5d3cl

d8d6e4b6c4d8b3f6g5g5f5e2g4e2f6g4e2c4b6

d8d6f5h5nb6

nb6d8b7f3d4e2e3d3f3b6

bSS adjacenton rank/filea8a7

b8a7c8b7b6a4c6b4b5a3c5b3c4b4a4g7b6d2f6b8

c8d7d8e7

d8e8f8e8 f8 g8d8e6e7e8 f6 f7d7e5e6e7 f6 f5d7e6f6d8c7c6d7d6e6d7c8d8

III

204205206207208209210211

IV:

212213214215216217218219

V:220221222223224225226227228229

: bSSon <

f8h7f7h6f6h5f4a5f3 a4fl a2b8a4f8a8

bSS (

» adjacentdiagonal

c8 c5 d6c7 c4 d5c6 c3 d4b7c5d4b6c4d3b4c2dld8d6e7d7f6g5

between onrank/filec4c5d4d5c3c4b5a7b4a6a5a4h2c5a5c6

Othere6a7e4f6a2h2a6d2f4c3e5dlf3h3c6b8g8e8a7

c7 c6 c8d7d6d8c6 c5 c7c7b7d7c6b6d6d8c7e7d7e3e5d8c8e8

c7b4b7

d6c5f3c7d5h5d5e5h2c6d6g3d4e4hlc8 c7 e3c6 b6 f8c7b7g6

432

*C* Ken Thompson programmed sequence

Creation date: 7.xii.85. 048wKwQ bKbS bS

wKa8001 a8a7002003004005006007008009010Oil012013014015016017018019020021022023024025026027028029030031032033034035036037038039040041wKb8

e7d6

b7

c7a7

f6a7a6e6

f6b5d5

d4

c5d5

d6f5e5f5c4e7g6d5f6

042 b8a7043044045046047

e6

c8 d7 d8e7

d8f7c6d8

e7a5d4e5

d8c6e5b4

e8 c6 a5f8 f6 e8

e4g8d8c6c7d8b7

b5a3e7g8

g6f5

e5f7d4f3b4d3d4b3

f3e2

e5 g4e4c3

d7 a5 c4e7 c6 e5

d4H c6a5g7d8e6c6 e4 c3d6e4c3d6b4d3f4 e8 d6f4d8f7

g4 c6 d8a5

g3 c6 e5

d8e8f8d6e8

nb5f5c4

049050051052053054055056057058059060061062063064065066067068069070071072073074075076

a4b7e6e5d5f5e5

e6c5d5

e5c2

c8g8a5h5d4c5e7e5e3fld3

wKc8077 c8b7078079080081082083084085086087088089090091092093094095096097

f6

d8a5b5

e4d8d6e7e8 g7 f 5f8d6e8d7 e4 c3e7 b5 d4e7 e4 c3n d6e8

f5g7d6b5a6d5e7b6d6e8

f5c4e4

b6c3e4e5 f7d6f5

c6 c7 b5b6f8d2e4b2c4c3e4

e6 c3 b5f5 d6e8c4 d6 e4g4 c5 e5g3 e4 e8b2a3c4

e8 f8 g8g6

f6d5e6f8

g7c5d4

f 8 e6 f 5e7 c6 b5H c5e4g7 c5 e6b6f7 e5b6c5e4b6f7 e5c6 a6 b4

e6g5d4f4

d6c5 d7c2d4a6c5

098099100101102103104105106107108109110111112113

f6c3

d7c3h2c4h7e7f5e3d4b4

f3

a5c4b5d4e6

b3c5d4e6d5 a6 b4

e6f8e5 a6 c5g5e8f7d4f4h3

e6f4g4c5d3b3 a6d3 e6

b3h3 g3

wKdS114 (115116117118119120121122123124125126127128129130131132133134135136137138139140141142143144145146147

18 a6g6

h7f8e5e8b5f5

b8c5g3e8c6g6d3e7f6c4g4d3g2c6f3e6e4c4h4e8

b8b6d5f8 f6 g8

d5e4g4

f7b6g7c6 e4 f6c6 f5 g7d6 g3

b6c4f6h5

e4g4

e4d2e6b6c4

b5d4b6d5

a5h4b6a5 a4 a6c5 e4 f6

d5e5h8

e5 g4 h6f4h5b6c4

h5 f6 g6b4d5f6d4f4h5f4b6d5c3e3 d5 f6

b6c4f3b2d3

e5

d6f5e3e4

wKb7148 b7a6149 h6150151152153154155156157wKc7158 c7f5159160

161162163164165166167168169170171172173174175176177wKd7178 d7a5179 c6180 g5181182 d8183 b8184 f8185186187188189190 dl191 f5192 e3wKc6193 c6b4194 a7

a6c6e8f8

g5a7e4

f6b4e2c3f4

a5f8

nf4

d7e7g8d5e3

f6b4f4e3

g7 f 4 g6d6f6h5

f6 d5 f4

e7 e5 c4g4d3

f3H f4g7 e4 g5a5 b4 c4b5c4a5

d2b5 c4 c5c5b6c4

e5f7g4d3f3

d5 g6a5c4f6g4

e4 a5 c4d3e5f3

b7b5d4H e4g5H f5 g7

d4a6b5b6 b7f 6 f 5

g3h5b5c4d4c5 e3 f5d5 f5 g7

h4c4 e3 g3d4e4h7c2 b5 d4

e8f6f7f8 e4 f6

433

195196197198199200201202203204

gsd6c8f4

h2d6a5d5e4

e7 e8 f8f7 f4g6e6 d7 f6e6 e4 c3

f2c3f5

f6 e6 g6f6 e4 f3f6 e4 g5

c2f5

205206207wKd6

c5d3h5

208 d6h7209210211212

d8g4

e6

g6 e3 g4e5d2e4g3 e6 f5

f7g4g7f6 e7 g6f6f4

d3g6 f6 h6

213214215216217218219220221

d7nc8f3

c8c6fl

g5 f3 f4b4c3d3d4b4c2d4 f4 g6

h3e2

b3 d3e3 g2

222223wKd5224 (225226227228229

e8el

J5h5g7g3

e5gl

f3 b4d3g2d4e3

f6f7h6f5 h7g5

f3d2

g5 f5 h5g3d2g2

THOUGHTS ON THE 63-MOVEWIN IN GBR CLASS 1006

John Roycroft

I: After playing the computer's solu-tion through several times, and ha-ving examined about 50 of the 229zugzwangs, some observationsarise.

First, we must bear in mind that inour present state of knowledge:

- we have (from the computer) atno point any equioptimal moves byW or by Bl- we have (from the computer) noW moves that don't win- we are ignorant of positional dra-wing threats.

Our prudent course of action, there-fore, is to devise questions such that,when at some future time the database is online we shall be able,(a) readily to persuade the computerto divulge answers, and(b) to use the answers the computerwill supply.(To devise such questions it natu-rally helps to know the currenttechniques, elementary as they are,for quickly querying the data base.In the years ahead we can expectmore sophisticated querying tools tobe developed. The techniques avai-lable at the Turing Institute will notbe further described here, since theydo not properly belong in a chessmagazine.)

II: In what follows:

*J* is a human conjecture, one thatcannot at present be usefully testedwith a data base, but whose testingis conceivable

*H* is a (human) hypothesis, some-thing that can probably be testedagainst the data base

It is useful to become familiar witha couple of tactics:

1. The 'diamond': bSSbK forming asmall diagonal triangle and wQ com-pletes it with check, opposite bK,winning.

2. The 'pick-up'. bKd6 bSe5,g6.bSf4;Qb4+ wins.

A common defensive picture will beself-protecting bSS. Now, what canwe say about straddling - ie, eitherbK protecting or wK (or wQ) attack-ing both bSS?

1. *H* bK straddling is of itself nota strong defence, since there is al-ways a weakness in the armour.

*J* One still-concealed-from-ustheme of the play centres aroundthis fact.

2. *H* wQ straddling is not a deci-sive winning manoeuvre.

3. *H* wK straddling is practicallyalways decisive.

434

Ill: *C*

Now we address the 63-moves.

Below, repeated from EG87(pp. 161-2), is the sole example ofmaximal length optimal play in1006 currently accessible. A handi-cap to our present understanding ofthis endgame is that we do notknow: the effect of other W moves,whether equi-optimal or not; W mo-ves that fail to win; the effect ofother Bl moves. Given the relativelysmall number of facts on hand wemust expect the speculations (forthat is what they are) that follow tobe wide of their ultimate mark, butthis future fate does not necessarilyrender them a waste of time today.We take encouragement from kno-wing that we have at least one ad-vantage: we are not yet swamped byhundreds of millions of facts - whichwill be the very different situationand problem for later investigators.

wKd8 wQhl bKd6 bSe5,h8

Ke6 2.Qb3+ Kf6 3.Qb6+Kf5 4.Qbl+ Ke6 5.Qa2+ Kf66.Qa6+ Kf5 7.Qfl+ Ke6 8.Qh3+Kd6 9.Ke8 hSg6 10.Qb3/i Kc6ll.Qdl/ii Kc5 12.Qd2 Kc4 13.Qd6/iii Kc3 14.Qd5 Sc4 15.Qf3+ Kb416.Qb7+ Kc3 17.Qg7+ cSe5/iv18.Kd8 Kc4 19.Kc7 Kd5 2O.Qg8+/vKd4 21.Kd6/vi Sc4+ 22.Ke6 Sf4+23.Kf5 Sd5 24.Qg7+ Kd3 25.Qg3+Kd4 26.Qh4+ Kd3 27.Qd8/vii Kd4/viii 28.Ke6 cSe3/ix 29.Qh4+ Kc53O.Qf2 Kd4 31.Kd6 Ke4 32.Qel/xKd3 33.Qg3 Sc3 34.Ke5 Ke2/xi35.Qg6 Kd2 36.Qd6+ Kc2 37.Qc5eSdl/xii 38.Kd4 Kb3 39.Qb6+ Kc24O.Qg6+ Kd2 41.Qg2+ Se2+ 42.Ke4dSc3+ 43.KO/xiii Kd3 44.Qg6+ Kc445.Qa6+/xiv Kb4 46.Ke3 Scl47.Qh6/xv Sb3 48.Qf4+ Kb549.Kd3/xvi Sa4/xvii 5O.Qc4+ Ka551.Qg8(!) Kb4 52.Qb8+ Ka5 53.Kc4

Sd2+ 54.Kd4 Sb6 55.Qe5+ Ka656.Qe2+ dSc4 57.Kc5 Kb7 58.Qe7+Ka6 59.Qc7 Sa8 6O.Qc8+ Ka761.Qd7+ Ka6 62.Qb5+ Ka763.Qxc4.

To illustrate how poor our know-ledge of this endgame is (comparedto our knowledge of 0023, for exam-ple) here is a rudimentary attempt atidentifying phases of the struggle:

Moves1-8 Improving wQ position withgain of tempo.9-10 Zugzwang creation.11-14 Driving bK away from bSS.15-17 Improving wQ position withtempo.18-21 wK emerges to active semi-central square.21-23 bSS reorganise.24-28 Improving wQ position, fi-nally with a remote pin.29-33 wQ works with pins to im-prove position. From g3 wQ eyesthe 'hole' e5 already attacked bywK. So Bl must abandon the centre.34-37 Yet again wQ works in the re-gion where she has more space. Bltakes up a b2-based position, but itproves unmaintainable.38-43 Genuinely mysterious whencompared to what one might haveexpected! Something is hidden fromus.44-46 After three swift wQ checkswK is suddenly on the threshold ofparalysing bSS.47-50 After 47.Qh6!! which smells ofa masterly tempo move, Bl loses co-ordination: the move Sclb3 wouldblock bKb4, while the move bKb3blocks bScl.51-63 W mops up.

i) 10.Qb3. This is a zugzwang (DVH072 or KT 158), but what makes itone? Give WTM and play Qa2,what does Bl gain? One answer is:*H* bSg6-f4-d5.

435

This is not possible with wQb3 be-cause of Qb4+, a 'pick-up', whereaswith wQa2, the move Sf4; is safe,since Qd2+,Sd5.*H* There will be draws based onsolid near-corner positions like theKling & Horwitz set-up in GBRclass 0023. Such positions tend to bestrong because there is a) room fordefensive manoeuvres to avoidbeing squeezed, and b) insufficientroom for the attacker to work roundthe rear.(Note: the fact that the K&H posi-tion is NOT drawn is, I suggest, ared herring, because it IS the bestdefensive set-up, and if, to take aspectacular example, the move bKc4(instead of bKc5) were for some rea-son impossible or bad, then thewhole ending would be drawn, notwon!! *H*)

ii) This cutting off of bK from bSSlooks as if it will be decisive in shortorder, but thanks to Bl's counter-intuitive move 14 this is not so.Since we know neither what W isavoiding, nor what Bl is threatening,nor the results of moves such as anearlier Ke8 by W, nor the correct re-ply to 9.Qf5, nor what happens after9...hSf7; - so, there seems little use-ful comment or hypothesis to bemade on the first 11 moves - until,that is, we have the data base toquery and tell us more. Even thenthe only obviously relevant man-computer technique is to give Bl themove, see what the data base plays,and if it is a draw (the computer willtell us that) we can assume that Blhas that move as a drawing threat.

The technique of depthcharting (SeeEG83, p. 15) can certainly be automa-ted to help us here, but invoking it willhave to be selective: the automatic ge-neration of a million depthcharts is li-kely to do no more than supply datafor future projects in artificial intelli-gence!

iii) This is another zugzwang (DVH073 or KT 171), but this time a verycomprehensible one on generalgrounds because WTM W has notempo move to confine bK further,while BTM Bl must give ground.

iv) wQ seems frequently used to pa-ralyse bSS with a pin prior to wKadvancing. This makes it impossiblefor Bl to check or to attack wQ,while since the previous play hasforced bK away, wK has time for amodest piece of centralising beforebK can release bSS. (Note that bKcan always release a wQ paralysis ofbSS if it can protect one of them.This observation presumes that wKcannot intervene. Note also that Blchose to interpose on e5 with bSc4rather than with bSg6 because theformer choice slows down wK's ad-vance to the centre.)

v) It seems to us that 2O.Qf6 wouldserve as well, but we observe thatwQ frequently operates from a dis-tance (checking or pinning or - seemoves 35, 47 and 51 - with neithercheck nor pin) in optimal play. It iseasy to see advantages in this: wQdoes not obstruct wK; wQ is lesssubject to forks, especially after acheck or two; and wQ is well placedfor changing sides of the board withtempo later. But it is quite anothermatter to understand this endgameso well that one can confidently cho-ose such a move with no promptingfrom the computer.

vi) After 21.Kd6, remark the rela-tionship of wK to bSS. The same3-man configuration recurs (trans-posed on the board, of course) aftermoves 28, 31, 38 and 43. A featureof this configuration is that BTMmay well be able to deliver onecheck, or even two in succession, butnot more than two. A surmise is thatthis configuration is necessary to

436

break down Bl's best defences, butthat other configurations are eithergood for Bl in allowing a series ofchecks (with bK in support) to drivewK off, or else they are good for Win that wK can infiltrate (or facili-tate wQ so doing), and there are nochecks. An example of the latterwould be (with bSe5,g6) wKe4, oc-cupying a 'hole' in the knight's wall.

vii) An apparently incidental featureof the checking manoeuvre leadingup to this pin is the squares-obstruction of bK by bSS.*H* This could well be crucial to awin.

viii) We observe that though Blseems poised to set up a defensivebase around b2 he cannot actuallydo so. We should dearly like toknow what Bl's defensive threat(s)is/are at this point - for example ifbSd5 were not pinned.

ix) Note how Bl has set up a mostnatural defensive structure in thecentre of the board, but with a ga-ping hole to the East, which W atonce takes advantage of with thenext tempo-gaining positional ma-noeuvre.

x) Risking the accusation of post-event wisdom we can say that thismove: prevents bSe3 checking; canmeet bKd4 with Qd2+ and a wK in-filtration.

xi) It is miraculous that bK 'volunta-rily' retreats, but what else is there?Sdl; Qg6+,K-;Ke4, (that configura-tion again) looks dire.

xii) Kd4(d3)?? Qd4+. Again we seeBl apparently threatening to take upa defensive corner configuration -and we can say this despite our cur-rent ignorance of what the best suchpositions are. But W's next (the con-figuration again) stops this.

xiii) Yet again the configuration, en-ding a manoeuvre that we dearlywish we could fathom. Why did Whave to play moves 39-43, whichlook like losing both ground andtime?

xiv) A rare tactical trick here is that45.Ke3 allows Sd5+.

xv) Well, what do we make of this?How is it preferred over other mo-ves of wQ? Note that Bl has a fairdefensive posture for preventing wKfrom approaching: 45.Kd4, Sb3 +46.?

xvi) wK drops through the hole inthe ozone layer, forced on Bl by ano-ther case of bKSS obstruction - as ifby magic.

xvii) The final 14 moves have theirentertainment value in that a bS isrepeatedly offered.

*J* The necessary winning processof driving bK to the edge will passthrough a dangerous near-drawingphase. (This happens in 1060, wherelong optimal solutions regularlyskirt the Lolli position.)

*J* That phase is where we shouldlook for clues to general drawingprocedures.

AJRiii.88

QUEEN AGAINST TWOKNIGHTS IN STUDIES

by Arkady Lazarevich KHAIT, Sara-tov, and edited by AJR

The GBR class 1006 5-man end-game is one of the most complex inchess. By presenting studies in theirhistorical sequence, from 1750 to1986, we hope to interest not only

437

study enthusiasts but also grandmas-ters.

KH1: Ercole del Rio, Osserva-zioni..., 1750. alc7 1036.11C5a4g3.d3g4 3/5-=. l...Se2! 2.d4(Qxa4? Bd4+;) eSc3 3.dc Kc64.Qxg4 Kxc5.

KH2: Julius Mendheim, Aufgabenfur Schachspieler, 1832. e5h8 2.01b8h5.a3 3/2=. l.Sd7 a2 (else Sc5)2.dSf6alQ+3.K-drawn.

KH3: Mendheim, Aufgaben furSchachspieler, 1832. a8g4 1006f6a5c6 2/3-+. l...Kg3 2.Qf5 Kg23.Qf4 Kgl 4.Qf3 Kh2 5.Qg4 Khl6.Qg3 wins. It is interesting that theposition is drawn WTM. (KH3 is*C* position DVH 025 in EG93'smain article.)

KH4: George Walker, Le Palamede,1837. a8g6 1006 a3a5c6 2/3+. l.QfSKg5 2.Qf7 Kg4 3.Qf6 Kg3 and4.Qf5 wins (Mendheim). bK is con-sistently shepherded towards h 1 andstalemated there, after which Bl lo-ses instantly.

KHS: Walker, Le Palamede, 1837.a7a4 1006 blc5d7 2/3=. Here thedraw is obvious since there is noway to stalemate bK. With bKh8WTM wins with Qg6, BTM drawsKg7;Qf5,Kg8.

KH6: Paul Rudolph von Bilguer,Handbuch, 1843. g3f8 1006 e2f6g62/3=. l.Qe6 Kg7 2.KO Sh7 3.Kg4hSf8 4.Qd6 Kf7 5.Kg5 Se6 6.Kh6Se7=.

KH7: Thassilo von Heydebrand undder Lasa, Handbuch, 1843. b6b81006 a5a7b7 2/3-=. l...Sc8+ 2.Kc6Se7+!/i 3.Kb5 Sd6+! (Sd8? Qh4+)4.Kb6 Kc8 5.Qa7 Kd8 6.Qc7+ Ke87.Qb8 Kd7 8.Kc5 Sf7 drawn,i) Sa7+? 3.Kd5 Sc8 4.Qf4+ Ka8

5.Qc7 cSd6 6.Kc6 Ka7 7.Qb6+ Ka88.Kc7 Se8 9.Kd7 eSd6 10.Kc6 Kb31 l.Qa6 wins.

KH8: Henri Rinck, Amanecer (Zara-goza), 1947 (No.1083 in '1414').h5d5 3002 d7d8g6 3/2= l.Se6 Qh7+2.Kg5 Ke4 3.eSf4 Qf7 4.Sh5! Qf5+5.Kh6 Qf2 6.Kg5 Qg2+ 7.Kf6drawn.

KH9: Rinck, Ajedrez Espanol, 1948(No.1084 in '1414'). b6b8 3002f5d8f6 3/2= l.Sc6+ Ka8 2.Se8!Qf2+ 3.Kc7 Qf7 4.Kd8 Qd5+ 5.Kc7Qe6 6.Sd6 drawn.

KH10: G.Zakhodyakin, Shakhmatyv SSSR, 1949. c8e8 2.02 b8h8.e7e23/3=. l.Sa6! e2 2.Sc7+ Kf8 3.Se6+Kg8 4.Sf7! elQ 5.fSg5 drawn.

KH11: Z.M.Birnov, 2nd Prize, Lelo,1951. f7h7 35.11 a7e5h3c3.a6d24/4+. l.Sg5+ Kh6 2.gSf3! dlQ3.Sg4+ Kh7 4.Sf6+ Kh8 5.Se5 Qb3+6.Kg6 Qc2+ 7.Kf7 Qa2+ 8.Kg6Qg2+ 9.Kf7 Qg7 10.Ke6 Qgl(g2)1 l.Kf7 Qg7+ 12.Ke6, drawn.

KH12: Gia A. Nadareishvili, Sacha-drako etyudebi, 1952. a3g5 2.11b7c8.h5g3 4/2=. I.h6 Kxh6 2.dSd6g2 3.Sf5+ Kh7 4xSe7 glQ 5.Kb4!!drawn.

KH13: P.S.Pechenkin, 3rd Prize,All-Union Physkulture and Sportcommittee ty, 1953-54. f3h7 5.12d7g3e4.h3a3h4 4/4=. l.SfB/i Kg8(Kh6;Sf5+ and Sd4) 2.Sxe4 a2 3.Se6!Kf7 (alQ;S4g5) 4.S6g5+ Kg6 5.Kg2alQ (Kf5;Sd2) 6.SO! and 7.fSd2.i) l.Sxe4? a2 2.dSf6+ Kg6 3.Kg4alQ 4.Kxh4 Qgl! wins.

KH14: V.Yakimchik, Shakhmaty vSSSR, 1957. b5g7 2.02 d8g4.b3f63/3=. l.Se6+ Kh8 (Kf7;Se5+!) 2.Sxf6b2 3.Kc6 blQ 4.Kd7! Qb6 5.Ke7Qc6 6.Kf7 Qd6 7.Sg5 Qc7+ 8.Kg6Qg7+ 9.Kf5 Qf8+ 10.Kg6 drawn.

438

KH15: Nadareishvili, 3rd Prize,Themes-64, 1958. h8a6 3012 4/2 = .l.Sb4+ Ka5 2.Sc6 Ka4 3.Sb6+ Ka34.Sc4+ Ka2 5.Bf3!! QxO/i 6.Sb4+Kal 7.Sc2+ Ka2 7.Sb4+, drawn,i) Qf8 6.Kh7 Qf7+ 7.Kh8 Qxc48.Bd5 Qxd5 9.Sb4+.

KH16: Nadareishvili, Special Prize,Revista de Sah, 1959. h8a8 3133.31f5g3c2c8.a6b6d7.O 5/5=. I.b7+ Ka72.cdS+! Kxa6 3.b8S+! Ka5 4.Sc6+Ka4 5.Sb6+ Ka4 6.Rxf3+ Qxf37.Sc4+ Ka2 8.Sb4+ Kal 9.Sxc2+Ka2 10.Sb4+, draw.

KH17: Nadareishvili, 2nd Prize,Problem, 1962. f6f8 3012.01flblf5h8.e6 4/3= l.Sg6+ Ke8(Kg8;Se7+, Kxe6,) 2.Bd3 Qxd33.Sg7+ Kd8 4.Sxe6 Kc8 5.Se7+ Kb86.Sc6+ Ka8 7.Sd8 draw.

KH18: Nadareishvili, 3-4 Prize,lidskrift for Schack, 1962 (correc-tion). a8a5 3002.10 £8c8h6.b6 4/2=.I.b7 Ka6/i 2.Sf5!iii Qxf5 3.b8S+!Ka5 4.Sc6+ Ka4 5.Sb6+ draw,i) Qf3 2.Kf7(f5) Ka6 3.fSd6.ii) 2.Sf7? Qxf7 3.b8S+ Ka5 4.Sc6+Ka4 5.Sb6+ Kb5 wins.2.Sg4? QO 3.Sd6 Qc6(d3) wins.

KH19: Vazha Neidze, Etyudeby,1965. h4gl 2.02 f6g5.Og4 3/3-=.1..J2 2.Sxg4 flQ 3.Sh3+ Khl 4.hSf2Kgl 5.Sh3+draw.

KH20: Nadareishvili, Etyudeby,1965. b8gl 3012 c6f8clf4 4/2=.l.Se2+ Kfl 2.Bb4! Qb6+ 3.Kc8Qxb4 4.Sg3+ Kgl 5.Se2+ Khl6.Kc7(d7) draw. (Another studyfrom the same source: EG5, p. 104.)

KH21: Journal FIDE, 1965. c6a63002 3/2 f4b6d7 3/2=. l.Sc5+ Ka52.Sb7+ Ka4 3.Sc5+ Ka3 4.Sb5+ Ka25.Sc3+ Kal 6.S5a4 (Sb3+? Kb2;)Qe5 7.Kb6 Qd6 8.Kb5 draw.

KH22: E.L.Pogosyants, 64, 1969.a6a8 42.01 b6a4b7c8.d2 4/3=.l.Be3! Bb5+! 2.Kxb5 dlQ 3.Sc5(Sa5? Qd7+;) Qe2+ 4.Kc6 Qxe3/i5.Sb6+ Kb8 6.bSd7+ Kc8 7.Sb6+Kd8 8.Sb7+ Ke8 9.Sd6+ Kfl810.Sd7+ Kg8 ll.Sf6+ Kh8 H.dSe8draw.i) QO+ 4.Kc7 Qxe3 6.Sb6+ Ka77.bSd7 draw.

KH23: Nadareishvili, Selected Stu-dies, 1970. g3el 3002 a5b4d4 3/2=.l.bSc2+ Kdl 2.Se3+ Kel 3.eSc2+Kfl 4.Se3 Kgl 5.Sf3+ Khl 6.Sg4Qc7 7.Kh3 draw.

KH24: V.S.Kovalenko, 2 Hon.Men-tion, Merani, 1970 (EG24.1298).e7g8 3002 g3d5g4 3/2=. l.gSf6+/iKh8 2.Kf7! (Kf8? Qg6;) Qg7-h 3.Ke8Qa7 4.Kf8 Qg7 5.Ke8 Qg6+ 6.Kf8Qh6+ 7.Kfl Qg5 8.Se7! Qg7+ 9.Ke6Qh6 lO.KH/ii Qg7+ ll.Ke6 Qg312.Kf7 Qc7 13.K« Qc2 14.Kf7draw.i) l.dSf6+? Kh8 2.KH Qc7 3.Kg6Qe7 4.Kh6 Qf7 5.Kg5 Kg7 6.Sh5+Kf8.ii) 10.Sf5? Qh3 ll.Ke5 Qb3 12.Kf4Qe6 13.Kg5 Qf7 wins.

KH25: Nadareishvili, Selected Stu-dies, 1970. h7f7 3001.10 b4c7.d73/2=. l.d8S+ Kf8 2.dSe6+ Kf7 3.Sd8draw.

KH26: A.Manyakhin, 1 Hon.Men.,Magadan Komsomolets, 1982(EG76.5131). c3bl 32.01 c6a2h8.h43/3=. l.Sb4, with:Be4 2.Sf7 h3 3.Sg5 h2 4.Sxe4 hlQ5.Sd2+Kal 6.Sb3+Kbl 7.Sd2+Kel8.Sd3+Kdl 9.SO-KBb5 2.Sf7 h3 3.Sd6! h2 4.Sxb5 hlQ5.Sa3+! Kal 6.Sc2+ Kbl 7.Sa3+ Kcl8.Sd3+Kdl 9.SO+.

KH27: Manyakhin, Commended,64, 1983 (EG81.5746). c3a3 3002a4ele4 3/2=. l.Sc2+ Ka2 2.Sb4+

439

3.Sf2! Qa3+ 4.Kc4 Qcl5.Kb5 Qg5+ 6.Ka4 Kb2 7.bSd3+!Kc2 (Kc3;Se4+) 8.Sb4+ Kcl(Kd2;Se4+) 9.bSd3+ Kbl 10.Sb4draw.i) Kbl 3.Sd2+ Kcl 4.Sd3+ Kdl5.Sb2+.

KH28: Manyakhin, Specially Com-mended, FIS-60, 1983 (EG80.5552).f2h2 3002 h7e5h6 3/2= 1.SB+ Khl2.Sg4! Qh3 3.Se3! Qe6 4.Ke2! Qc65.Kf2 Qc5 6.Ke2 Qh5 7.Kf2 Qh38.Ke2 Qg3 9.Sf5 QO 10.Ke3 Qh3ll.S5h4! drawn.

KH29: Manyakhin, 2nd Prize,Schach, 1983 (EG88.6426). hlal12.21 h2c2O.b6g5b3 4/4+. I.b7 b22.b8Q blQ+ 3.Qxbl+ Kxbl 4.g6Se3 5.g7 Sxh2 6.g8Q Sg4 7.Qb3+!Kcl 8.Qc3+ Kdl 9.Qd3+, and KellO.Kgl (No.94 of the 229 *C* zug-zwangs. The originally published so-lution and award do not claim thatWTM cannot win. AJR), or Kcl10.Qe2 wins.

KH30: Manyakhin, Chess andDraughts in Byelorussia, 1983. g8d82.02 f8h6.b3b5 3/3=. l.Sf7+ Kc7/i2.Se6 Kb8! 3.Sd4! b2 4.Sxb5 blQ5.Sd6, with:Qg6 6.Kf8 Qf6+ 7.Ke8 Qe6+ 8.Kd8draw.

Qb3+ 6.Kf8! (Kg7?) Qe6 7.Kg7 Qe78.Kg6! Qf8 9.Kg5 Qg3 10.Kg6 Qf4ll.Kg7 Ka8 12.Kg6 Qf4 ll.Kg7Ka8 12.Kg6! Qf8 13.Kg5 Qf314.Kd6 Qf4 15.Kg7 Qg5+ 16.Kf7!draw/ii.i) Ke7 2.Sg6+ Kf6 3.Sf4 b2 4.Sd5+Ke6 5.Sc3b4 6.Sbl draw.ii) 16.Kf8? Qf6+ 17.Ke8 Qe6+18.Kd8(Kf8,Qd7;)Kb8.

KH31: Manyakhin, 4 Hon.Mention,Evreinov Jubilee, 1984(EG82.5760). h3hl 2.13Clg8.h5a4b3g7 4/4=. l.Sd3 b2!2.Sxb2 a3 3.h6!! gh 4.Sdl! a2 5.Sxh6alQ 6.Sg4! Kgl 7.dSe3 Qel 8.Sc2!Qc3+ 9xSe3 Qh8+ 10.Kg3 Qhlll.Kf4draw.

KH32: Manyakhin, Schach, 1986.f7h7 3002 d4d2e4 3/2=. l.Sf6+ Kh62.Sg8+ Kh5 3.Sf6+ Kh6(Kh4(g5);Sf3+) 4.Sg8+ Kh7 5.Sf6+Kh8 6.dSe4!, with:Qgl 7.Sd6! Qg5 8.dSe8! Qe5 9.Kg6Qc5 10.Kf7! draw.Qa7+ 7.Kg6! (Kf8? Qb7) Qc7 8.Sg5!Qg7 9.Kf5 Qa7 10.Kg6 Qgl ll.Kh6Qa7 10.Kg6 Qg7+ 13.Kf5 Qf814.Kg6 draw.

This material could also concerntourney judges.

EDITORIAL RAG-BAG

y 4 = z4

1. From THE GUARDIAN, compu-ter section p. 27 Thurs 5.V.88 "...theEuler Conjecture that the four-va-riable equation

w4 + x4

nas no genuine whole number solu-tions. This conjecture remained un-resolved for two centuries until, lastsummer, the Harvard mathemati-cian Noam Elkies proved that it wasfalse.

"In fact, a whole number solution... has since been found. (... Elkies'proof did not exhibit a solution, itsimply demonstrated that there hadto be one.) ... Roger Frye of theThinking Machines Corporation dis-covered ...:w - 9 ,̂800 y - 414,560x - 217,519 z -422,481."Noam Elkies is a well known Ame-rico-Israeli study composer.

440

2. British television: Channel 4, Sat.7.V.88.

This programme was the story of ajunior US school in run-down, all-black, central Indianapolis, wherethe teacher, Mr Cotter (?), who hadtrained for the Roman Catholicpriesthood but finally couldn't ac-cept celibacy, switched from thatvocation but retained his deep desirefor service. He persuaded the headteacher to let his teach chess. Eve-ryone laughed. Black kids? Depri-ved area? With his own enthusiasmand employing motivational techni-ques he produced a national cham-pion team. One of the techniques wesaw on the programme was to geteveryone checkmating with two bi-shops under a time limit. To beginwith nobody could do it in underthree minutes. Then he said thatwithin a week everyone would do itin under a minute. And they did. ...The team was entertained by Presi-dent Reagan in the White House,and travelled widely, including 10Japan.

3. In an attempt indirectly to extendthe sales of the three QPQ booklets(and thereby to publish more titles)the following advertisement was pla-ced in the classified ads section forthree consecutive issues (xi.87, xii.87,i.88) of the U.S. Chess Federation'smonthly CHESS LIFE:"SPYCATCHER" (or $19) wantedin airmail exchange for three unique"5-man endings'' solved by KenThompson Bell Labs computer("Banned" in USA!?)...

The result was one (tortuous) sale.The justification for the phrase inparentheses is the apparent absenceof any US review of the bookletsdespite many review copies being

sent. The chess world (or is it just itseditors?) is clearly unable to recog-nise real news! The booklets are wayahead of their time, and will be ararity within a few years.

4. The Mary Rose was the name ofthe English king Henry VIIFs flag-ship that capsized and sank outsidePortsmouth Harbour on its maidenvoyage. Over 400 years later thewreck has been raised and is beingrestored. A backgammon board anddice have been found, but no chess.

5. The 0023 data base experiment(1985) at the Turing Institute 5.1.MACHINE INTELLIGENCE 11,1988, 400 pages (Oxford UniversityPress, price £60), includes the paper"Expert against oracle" by AJR.5.2. The Oxford COMPANION TOTHE MIND, 1987, 856 pages (Ox-ford University Press, price £25),edited by Richard L. Gregory, inclu-des a contribution on computer chessby Donald Michie.

6. There were no entries for EG90'stongue-in-cheek prize quiz (see thebottom of p. 320). Judge " A " :Walter Korn (b 22.V.08 in Prague,now of San Mateo, California).Judge " B " : AJR. The words quotedwere in a communication fromJudge " A " published (the reason forincluding the quotation is unclear) inthe International Computer ChessAssociation Journal Vol. 10, No. 2,p. 107.

7. At the iv.88 meeting of the CESCthe Swedish composer Lars Falk

441

gave an entertaining talk aboutyoung contemporary Swedish studycomposers. He took the accompa-

nying photograph of Peter Kings, Ti-mothy Whitworth and Ken Whyld sea-ted, with AJR retreating.

REVIEWS

STUDIES, ARTICLES, ANALYSES,by C M . Kasparyan, Moscow, 1988,288 pages, in Russian. The 400 studiestake up 118 pages. If one is already fa-miliar with the studies by the FIDEGM composer (b. 1910), who has ta-ken 1st prize with one in 5 of all hisstudies, who has won Athe studieschampionship of the USSR outright 6times (there have been 14 such events),and who came out ahead of Botvinnikin an otb tournament in 1931, then theremaining pages will attract special at-tention. These pages contain uniquepersonal information that, for instan-ce, takes advantage of glasnost in thatwe are told about GMK's religion (Ar-menian-Gregorian) in an anecdoteabout his 'second name' (not patrony-mic), given in" error by a confused

priest at a christening ceremony andincorporated onto the birth certificate.A consequence was that GMK was cal-led Rafael at school and Genrikh athome. Here and there the authorvouchsafes us tantalising glimpses ofother soviet study composefs. Apartfrom a brief piece about GMK, the ar-ticles that conclude the volume are byGMK and include original material,for instance GMK's own set of drawsin GBR class 0023 and his account ofhis card index of studies (organised byauthor and 20 types of theme) begunin the late 1950's with a view to hissubsequent literary labours. His ac-count of how he set about (was com-pelled to set about) obtaining non-soviet books will surprise readers unfa-miliar with the USSR.

442

GMK had no chess tutors, because the-re were none. He was self-taught, gui-ded only by what he read and chose tobe influenced by. As he says, had hehad a tutor matters would have beendifferent - he might have been talkedout of combining the study of studieswith over-the-board play, a practicewhich he strongly defends on thegrounds that acquaintance with excep-tional endgame tactics ensures that sur-prising possibilities, which abound inthe endgame, are not overlooked bythe adoption or routine of superficialanalyses. While we have nothingagainst chess tutoring (and we knowthat GMK himself has devoted a greatdeal of his time to the encouragementof local talent in Erevan) we must bethankful in the case of the GM that hehad none, that his genius was unta-med.

The six GBR class 0023 draws comefrom pp245-6. For others, see EG83ppl3-14 (and p22) and EG92.6875.

Kl: Sd4; Bel + , Kb3; and either Bh7,Sc2 + ; Kbl, Sa3+ or Ba2 + ,Kc2; Bh6, Sb3 +

K2: Sd4; Kbl, Sb3; Bh6, Sd2 + ; Kcl(Kal, Sb3 + ;) Sb3 + ; Kdl, Kb2.

K3: Se7; Bh3 (Bb7, Kf7;) Kf7; Bh6,Kg6; Bf8, Kf7.

K4: Kf7; Bh6, Sg8; Bh5 + , Ke6;Bg4+, Kf7.

K5: Sg3; Bd5, Sfl.K6: Se4; Bf5, Ke2.

BTM, Draw

BTM, Dra

BTM, Draw BTM, Draw 3 + 2

443

BTM, Draw

CHESS COMPOSITION in AZER-BAIDZHAN, by the late A.V. Sary-chev, Baku, 1985, 84 pages, in Azer-baidzhani. Given the title andauthor one expects to find a collectionof Alexander Sarychev's studies, but

we find only 7 (jointly composed stu-dies included). Alas, the author fell fa-tally ill in. the course of preparing thisbooklet, the first ever on chess compo-sition in this Caucasian soviet republic,and no one took up the work to inclu-de more of his studies. Problems areincluded, but nevertheless we do count28 studies in all. The edition size is gi-ven as 10,000 and the price a mere 25kopeks.

II Finale Negli Scacchi, by Enrico Pa-oli, Milan, 1988, 512 pages. This is thefourth edition. New material is, we be-lieve, restricted to computer discove-ries first published in EG.

OBITUARIES

+ Eduard Alekseevich ASABA, inii.88, in Moscow. Sometime mariner(with his beard he looked the part) ofGreek extraction, Asaba, though reser-ved and shy to an extreme (true, wemet only after he had suffered a heartattack) was a most friendly, helpfuland hospitable man. There is hardly anissue of EG over the last ten years wi-thout a pair of his studies, often ofhigh quality. We are proud that hechose EG as outlet for a long article (inEG90) which must have been one ofhis last efforts. His departure saddensus all.

+ Rolf RICHTER (26.v.4M4.i.88).The well-known East German compo-ser died of heart failure in his birth-place of Oederan, a small town lying

between Karl-Marx-Stadt (Chemnitz)and Dresden. He seems to have livedalone during his composing years, il-lustrated in EG's pages by: Nos 24872584 2639 4239 4325 4615 4619 48764881 5424 5652 6005 6406 6428 65656582.

+ Ramon REY ARDID(20.xii.03-21.i.88). With his memoriesof Henri Rinck (see EG69) and hismembership of the exclusive club ofwriters of multi-volume treatises on theendgame (Finales de Ajedrez, Teoria yPractica), the analytical mind of theSpanish doctor from Zaragoza has leftan indelible mark. A strong player,both otb and by correspondence, healso composed. (Biographical detailsmay be found in Ajedrez de Estilo, Ar-gentina, iii.88.)

444

DIAGRAMS AND SOLUTIONS

No. 6950 E. Melnichenko (i.82)2 Hon. Mention, The Problemist,

1982-83

No. 6950: Emil Melnichenko (NewZealand). 1. Kc5 Kf8/i 2. Kd6 Ke8 3.Kc7 a4 4. Kxb7 a3 5. Kc6 a2 6. b7 alQ7. b8Q+ Ke7 8. Qd6 + Kf6/ii 9.Qf8 + /iii Kxe6 10. f5+ gf 11. Qe8 +Kf6 12. Qh8 + wins.i) I...a4 2. Kd6 a3 3. e7 Kf7 4. Kd7wins.ii) 8...Ke8 9. Qd7 + Kf8 10. Qf7mate.iii) 9. e7 + ? Kf7 10. Qxg6 + Kxg611. e8Q+ Kf5 12. Qf8 + Qf6 +draws.

"Every man participates, and 10.f5+ is a pleasant surprise."

No. 6951 V. Pachman (xi.83)3 Hon. Mention, The Problemist,

1983-83

6. Qxb3 ab+ 7. Kb2/ii Sxc8 8.Kxb3, drawn.i) I...b3 2. ab ab (Rxb3;Qel) 3.Bxd6 b2 + 4. Qxb2 Rxb2 5. Kxb2Rf2 6. Bg4 Bxc4 7. Bg3 draw,ii) Neither 7. Kc3? Se4 + 8. Kd4 b2,nor 7. Kxb3? Sxc8 and W is in zug-zwang, compared to the main line 7.Kb2, putting Bl in the same predi-cament.

"Entertaining introduction leads to apretty zugzwang, but several menplay only a passive role."

No. 6952 P. Joitsa (iii.82)1 Comm. The Problemist, 1982-83

No. 6951: Vladimir Pachman. 1.Bxc5 Rxa2 + /i 2. Qxa2 Rf 1 + 3. SclRxcl + 4. Kb2 Rc2 + 5. Kxc2 b3 +

No. 6952: P. Joitsa (Romania). 1.Sc5/i Re2+ 2. Khl/ii d2 3. Sb3/iiiSf3/iv 4. Rxf3 dlQ 5. Kgl Rf2 6.Re3+ Re2 7. Rf3 drawn.i) 1. Rgl+? Kf2 2. Rg2+ Kf3 3.Rg3+ Kf4 4. Sc5 Re2+ 5. Kh3 d26. Rgl Rel.ii) 2. Kh3? d2 3. Sb3 dlQ 4. Rgl +Kf2 5. Rxdl Re3+ 6. Kh2 Sg4+ 7.Khl Rh3 mate.iii) 3. Rgl+? Kf2 4. Sb3 Rel.iv) 3...dlQ 4. Rgl+ Kf2 5. RxdlRe3 6. Rd2+ Kg3 7. Rg2+ Kxh4 8.Sd2 draw.

"A neat positional draw with goodeconomy and a charming quiet move5. Kgl."

445

No. 6953 Liew Chee Meng (v.83)2 Comra., The Problemist, 1982-83

No. 6953: Liew Chee Meng (Malay-sia). Has there been a studies 'pre-sence' in Malaysia since Mike Bentleft in troubled 1949? 1. Rc6 +Kb8/i 2. Sd7+ Kb7 3. Rc7 + /ii Ka64. Kc6 Rb5/iii 5. Rb7 Rb6+ 6. Sxb6ab 7. Rxb6 + Ka7 8. Rb7+ Ka6 9.Rb8 Ka7 10. Rd8 a4/iv 11. Rd4 a312. Rxe4 d2 13. Ra4+ Kb8 14.Rb4+ Ka7 15. Rbl/v Ka6 16. RalKa5 17. Kc5 Ka4 18. Kc4 e5 19. Kc3e4 20. Kxd2 Kb3 21. Rbl + wins,i) l...Kd8 2. Kxe5d2 3. Rd6+.ii) 3. Rcl? Rd5 + 4. Kxe6 Rxd7 5.Kxd7 d2.iii) 4...a4 5. Sxe5 d2 6. Rd7 e3 7.Kc5 e2 8. Sc6.iv) 10...e5 11. Kb5 Kb7 12. Rd7 +Kc8 13. Rd5 Kc7 14. Kc4 a4 15.Kc3.v) 15. Rb7+? Ka6 16. Rb3 Ka5 17.Rxa3+ Kb4 18. Rd3 Kc4 19. Rxd2e5 20. Re2 Kd4 21. Kd6 e4, drawn.

"Precisely constructed with finessesin the R vs. P ending which, how-ever, is largely a matter of tech-nique. Nevertheless all men are ac-tive, always a merit."

No. 6954: I. Krikheli (USSR). 1. a6 +Ka7/i 2. Bd6 Qxh5/ii 3. Bb8 + Ka8 4.Be5+ Ka7 5. Rh8 Qg4 6. Bb8 + Ka87. Bg3 + Ka7 8. Rh7 + Ka8 9. Rh4Qg5 10. Rh8+ Ka7 11. Bb8 + Ka812. Bf4+ wins.i) l...Kc7 2. a7 Qxh5 3. Bd6 + Kd74. Rd8+ wins.

ii) 2...cb 3. Re7+ Qxe7 4. Bxe7 gh5. Kf3 Ka6 6. Kf4 wins.

"A thrice-repeated manoeuvre win-ning bO is cleverly done, but there isneither real surprise nor effectivecounterplay."

No. 6954 I. Krikheli (xi.83)3 Comm., The Problemist, 1982-83

Win

No. 6955 D. Gurgenidze andN. Kralin

1st Prize, Birnov Memorial, 1986

No. 6955: D. Gurgenidze and N.Kralin. Judge: A. Maksimovskikh.1. g8S+ Kh7 2. Sg5+ Kxg8 3.Se4+ Qg3 (Og7;Sf6 mate) 4. Rxg3 +Kh7 5. Kf7 bcQ 6. Rh3+ Qh6 7.Sg5 mate.

No. 6956: M. Zinar. 1. Kc2 g4 2. h5b5 3. h6 b4 4. h7 Kal 5. h8S a2 6.Sg6 fg 7. f7 g5 8. Kd3/i Kb2 9.f8B/ii alQ 10. Bg7+ Kxb3 11.Bxal.i) 8. Kd2? Kb2v 9. f8Q alQ 10.Qf6+ Kbl 11. Qxal+ Kxal 12. Kd3Kb2 13. Kc4 Ka3 and Bl wins.ii) 9. f8Q? alQ 10. Qf6+ Kxb3 11.Qxal stalemate.

446

No. 6956 M. Zinar= 2/3 Prizes, Birnov Memorial, 1986

Win 7 + 7

No. 6957 V. Vlasenko2/3 Prizes,

Birnov Memorial, 1986

No. 6957: V. Vlasenko. 1. c5 Bf2 2.d6+ Kc8 3. c6 h4 4. Sc2/i h3 5. Sb4h2 6. Sd5 hlQ 7. d7+ Kd8 8. c7 +Kxd7 9. c8Q + Kxc8 stalemate,i) 4. Sb3? h3 5. Sd2 h2 6. Se4 h lQ7. d7+ Kd8 8. c7 + Kxc7 9. d8Q +Kxd8 wins.

Everyone at the CESC meeting on2.x.87 (there was no meeting on9.x.87) asked "Where are all theother (very necessary) annotations?"

No. 6958 Yu. Makletsov4th Prize,

Birnov Memorial, 1986

No. 6958: Yu. Makletsov. 1. c8Q-fSg8+ 2. Qxg8 + Bxg8 3. d7 Sd6 4.g6 Sf5+ 5. Kg5 Sd4 6. d8Q Se6+ 7.Kh6 Sxd8 8. g7 mate.

No. 6959 M. DudakovSpecial Prize,

Birnov Memorial, 1986

Draw 5 + 3

No. 6959: M. Dudakov. 1. Sf4 Kel2. Sd3+ Kdl 3. Kb8 Kxd2 4. Sc5Kc3 5. Se4+ Kd4 6. Sd2 Kc3 7.Se4 + Kc4 8. Sd2+ Kc3 9. Se4 +Kd3 10. Sc5 + Kc4 11. Sxd7 clQ 12.Se5+ Kb5 13. d7 Qg5 14. a4 +Kb6/i 15. a5 +/i i Kb5 16. Sf7 Qf4 +17. Kc8 Qg4 18. Kc7 Qc4 + 19. Kb8Qf4 + 20. Kc8, drawn,i) If Bl is serious about winning, bKis constrained by the need to stopwSc6.ii) W has cunningly achieved controlof the b6 square, now no longeravailable to bQ.

PROBLEMISTThe rich vii.88 issue of our contempo-rary the PROBLEMIST has a new co-lumn, of studies selections, by Jan Ru-sinek, the still young Polish giant.From the same issue we learn of thedeath at age 75 of A.N. Studenetsky,soviet study composer, and of two stu-dy composing tourneys.

447

UK ISSN 0012-7671

THE CHESS ENDGAME STUDY CIRCLE1. Annual (January-December) subscription: £8 or $15. (Airmail: £3 or $5 supplement.)2. National Giro account: 51 152 5907 (Chess Endgames Consultants & Publishers).3. Bank: National Westminster (21 Lombard Street, London, EC3P 3AR - A.J. Roycroft Chess Account).4. All analytical comments to: 'EG Analytical Notes', David Friedgood, 1 Waverley Place, Leatherhead, Surrey, KT228AS, England.5. Composers may have their unpublished studies confidentially tested for originality by the HARMAN INDEX: BrianStephenson, 9 Roydfield Drive, Waterthorpe, Sheffield, SI9 6ND, England.6. All other correspondence to: A.J. Roycroft, 17 New Way Road, London, NW9 6PL, England.7. Unless clearly pre-empted by the context (such as a tourney judge's comments between inverted commas), all state-ments and reviews are by AJR.

*C* denotes a computer-related article or diagram.

BTM - Black to MoveWTM - White to Moveotb - over-the-board

GBR: code (after Guy/Blandford/Roycroft) denotes chessboard force in at most six digits. Examples: two whiteknights and one black pawn codes into 0002.01; wQ bQ wR codes as 4100; wBB vs. bS codes as 0023; the full comple-ment of 32 chessmen codes as 4888.88. The key to encoding is to compute the sum 'l-for-W-and-3-for-Bl' for eachpiece-type in QRBS sequence, with wPP and bPP uncoded following the 'decimal point'; the key for decoding is to di-vide each QRBS digit by 3, when the quotient and remainder are in each of the 4 cases the numbers of Bl and W piecesrespectively.

Next meeting of the CHESS ENDGAME STUDY CIRCLE will be on Friday, 1st October, 1988. Phone AJR on 01-205 9876.

Tourney announcements

1. SHAKHMATY(Baku) informal in-ternational tourney for 1988-89. Ad-dress: SHAKHMATY, ul. B. Abakya-na, 529 kvartal, 370146 BAKU, USSR.

2. Aleksei Kopnin Jubilee (for our va-lued contributor's 70th birthday). Clo-sing date: l.ix.88. Address:Komsotnolets, Sverdlovsky prospekt60, Chelyabinsk 454080, USSR. Markenvelope "KAISSA Jubilee".

GOLDEN FLEECE-88. Closing date30.ix.88. Maximum one entry per com-poser. Send in 2 diagrams. Free theme.Judge: V.I. Kalandadze. Address:Dvorets Shakhmat, ul. Lenina 37,TBILISI, 380009 USSR.Mark envelope: Zolotoye Runo-88 /Golden FIeece-88.

"AITMATOV-60" Jubilee. In honourof the 60th birthday of the internatio-nally famous Kirgiz author Chingiz(= Genghis) Aitmatov. Closing date:1.x.88. Judge: E.L. Pogosyants. Maxi-mum 2 studies per composer. Dia-grams x 2. Address. Suyunbek Ismai-lovich BOLOTBEKOV, ul. 50-letiyaKirgizii 5-2, selo Kirovskoe, KIRGIZI-YA, 772700 USSR.

"NIKOLAEV-200", for miniatures(maximum 7 men). Closing date: 17.vi-ii.88. Add a motto to your entry. Ad-dress: postbox 13, Nikolaev -1, 327001USSR.

Alexander Hildebrand (AH) JubileeThe Swedish SPRINGAREN announ-ces this tourney. Closing date:31.xii.88. Send to: Kjell Widlert, Ring-vagen 139, II, S-1161 Stockholm, Swe-den. Money and book prizes. Judge:AH.

448