I always looked at chess endgame studies as a player. Therefore not only the artistic impression but also the use of the subleties in study solutions for playing is an important point for me. Endgame theory is rather more attractive in my eyes than composition techniques and themes. Unfortunately several rule modifications for the game that came into force in recent decades (no more adjourned games, incremental time limits, the illogical 50-moves rule) did not advance the development of chess endgame theory. On the other hand facilities to analyze endgames are better nowadays than ever before. I believe that study composition should fill this gap in analytical work.
Rainer Staudte
2638. Uralski problemist, 2003
2638. Uralski problemist, 2003
| White to move draws | 3 + 4 |
Let us have a look at this quite simple position. After the modest introduction 1. Bd4+ Kf1 2. Bxg1 Kxg1 3. g7 h2 4. g8Q h1Q+ we suddenly obtain a very complicated Queen ending. Where must the white King go?
5. Kg4! The only move. Now
5. Kg3? is refuted by Qh5! In an overwhelming number of variations in which White attempts to save the game, refutation is in a typical manner, shown more than a hundred years ago in a well known study by van Vliet. I'd like to call it the van Vliet manoeuvre.
First Example: 6. Qc8 Kh1 7. Qc6 Qg6+! 8. Qxg6 g1Q+ 9. Kf4 Qxg6 -+
and 5. Kg5 is refuted by Qh3
Second Example: 6. Qb8 Kh1 7. Qb7 Kh2 8. Qb2 Qh7 (threats Kh1) 9. Qa2! Qg8+ 10. Qxg8 g1Q+ 11. Kf4 Qxg8 -+ Of course White can play more precisly, but the van Vliet manoeuvre with its various echoes limits the play of White so that their game finally is lost. Let us return to the main variation.
Qh6 In this position we can determine a drawing zone of the white King. There are two classes of key squares. If the white King is on such a square White to move can hold the game.
The first class consists of a8, a7 and b7. This is not a surprise. We know from other endings of the type 'Queen and Pawn against Queen' that the King of the weaker party is more secure in the most distant corner (a8 in our case). Why does that heuristic principle of defending work? The reason is based on the fact that the enemy Queen has not enough possibilities to attack the King in this corner. There are only three directions to check and the Queen has to serve other functions like covering her own King and limiting the other Queen's freedom.
The second class consists of g3 and g4, and this is quite exciting. The last part of the solution explains, why the white King has a chance to survive in the neighbourhood of his colleague. To develop the full power of their pieces both sides have to centralize their Queens.
6. Qd5! All other moves of the white Queen lose.
Qg6+ And now again White has only a narrow path of successful resistance.
7. Kh4! If White moves 7. Kh3? then after Kh1! 8. Qf3 we have (with reversed colours) the original position of Louis van Vliet's famous study
(see 381.Deutsche Schachzeitung, 1888) and Black wins by Qg5!
An analytical problem is the position after 7. Kf3? The point is that more than 20 moves later Black finally succeeds to win. To find the correct way to win seems quite impossible for practical play.
Kh2 8. Qe5+! Kh1 8. ... Kg1 9. Qe1+ Kh2 10. Qe5+ repeates the position.
9. Qh2+! After 9. Qd5 Qh7+ 10. Kg5 (10. Kg4 Qg8+ van Vliet) (10. Kg3 Qg8+ van Vliet) Qg8+ Black again wins in the manner of van Vliet 9. Qa1+ does not work g1Q 10. Qa8+ Q6g2! 11. Qf3 Q1h2+ 12. Qh3 Qhxh3 mates
Kxh2 stalemate.
I was quite satisfied when I had found out the mechanism of the second drawing zone and decided that should be a good foundation of an interesting endgame study. Obviously other composers had an other look at these seven pieces on the board. Perhaps the poor introductory play with vanishing of the minor pieces had been the reason why I did not get any reaction to my opus. I'd like to invite other composers to use the idea of the shown stalemate combination. Perhaps they can find a more fascinating play and offer the idea in a more pleasant form.
rsc
Seite drucken