♡ 56 ( +1 | -1 ) should White win this endgame?Hi all you expert analysts! here is an endgame with W having a 2P advantage, B's of opposite colours. I was black, and thought for sure I had lost, but the game ends in a draw, with Black apparently successfully blocking all White's possibilities of promoting a P. Could W have won?
♡ 55 ( +1 | -1 ) Not sure,but I think that 48. Rd4?? was the decisive mistake. Winning chances are greatly reduced with the rooks off the board. If White wanted to win, he should have played something like 48. Rc5. After 54. f4 the game is quickly drawn. In order to preserve any winning chances White should have tried to activate his king, even at the cost of material. For example, 54. Bb7+ Kc4 (Ke6 is more tenacious, but White has better chances to win with Ke4 than in the game) 55. Ke4! Be1 56. f4! Bxg3 57. Bf7 g5 58. f5 with some chances to win because the King is better placed and White now has two passed pawns.
♡ 34 ( +1 | -1 ) simplifying in the endgamethanks for your reply! yeah, I wondered about the R trade too, specially since it disconnected his P's. yet the general principle is to simplify when you're up material, and one would think a 2P advantage should be enough to win. I felt he was immobilized considerably by the fact the B's were of opposite colours, so they couldn't be traded off.
♡ 90 ( +1 | -1 ) Rules and General PrinciplesThe golden rule of chess is that there are no rules. Blindly following general principles like "trade off pieces when you are up material" and etc. can often (as in this case) lead to failure, and one should check not the principle but the situation on the board.
In this case, the R trade leaves ONLY the opposite colored bishops. Of course, a pure king ending would be an easy win for White, but pure opposite color bishop endings have much more drawish potential than, for example, opposite colored bishops + 2 rooks. Black can establish a blockade here and the position is drawn.
Following the trade of rooks, white's only attempt to win would have been to prevent Black from establishing such a blockade, even if it meant giving up material.
Anyhow, White should probably win after 48. Rc5, for example: 48... Ke6 49. Bb7 Ke7 50. Ke4 followed by f4, Bd5, Kd3-c4, and advance of the pawns.
I agree with you that Rd4 is not the best. BOOC endgames are very difficult to win. The chances of a win increase with the presence of more pieces and more pawns. More pieces diminish the drawing tendencies of BOOC (both Dvoretsky and R. FIne have shown this in their works).
Since Rd4 lead to both less pieces and less pawns it was not a promising idea.
I would have liked Rc7 instead. It is hard for black to reasonably defend the h pawn and natural moves - like Bd2 (targeting the c3 pawn) don't seem to work because of Ke2 with the idea of moving Bd3 and trapping the black bishop - into a trade of bishops. With bishops off the board this ending must be won.
I think you are fortunate that white was apparently not familiar with the nuances of BOOC - his moves before were imaginative and creative.
♡ 90 ( +1 | -1 ) atrifix said>The golden rule of chess is that there are no rules. Blindly following general principles like "trade off pieces when you are up material" and etc. can often (as in this case) lead to failure, and one should check not the principle but the situation on the board.
well, now, no rules, eh - no general principles. *hmmmm*!! tell that to the beginner who opens with a4, h4, R-a3, etc. I learned the 'general principles' of chess at a young age, and have won lots of games using them. *certainly* no one *blindly* follows *any* principle or rule; it must be seen to apply in the situation. and I imagine even you my friend must apply these principles when playing: control the centre, develop minor pieces before major, keep all pieces protected, etc. etc. applying these general principles does not preclude being radical or innovative, IMHO, and naturally each situation must be considered on its merits.