Chess Forum
Promoting chess discussion.



Main
Date: 13 May 2006 02:11:35
From:
Subject: Don't understand Wikipedia "draw" article on specific game


Hello. Kindly consider this Wikipedia article on "Draw by mutual
agreement" in chess:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draw_by_mutual_agreement
The article cites a particular game (with illustration) where a
higher-ranked player made a fatal blunder but "tricked" a lower-ranked
player by offering a draw (the lower-ranked player was eager to accept
the offer without considering his superior position).

However, I don't understand why Reshevsky's move was 'immediately'
fatal. The move seems easily thwarted by Kxf2 (or no move at all by K,
as K is not in check).

What am I missing here???

Thanks!

--
http://DavidFilmer.com



Free Avlerchess Glass Chess Set - Find out how you can get a free glass chess set from us.



 
Date: 13 May 2006 11:29:47
From: bruno de baenst
Subject: Re: Don't understand Wikipedia "draw" article on specific game


Kxf2 Qxe3+ Kf1 Qxd3+ Kg1 Qxd4+ and white is 3 pawns down. On master level
that is fatal.

<usenet@DavidFilmer.com > schreef in bericht
news:1147511494.997423.175610@v46g2000cwv.googlegroups.com...
> Hello. Kindly consider this Wikipedia article on "Draw by mutual
> agreement" in chess:
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draw_by_mutual_agreement
> The article cites a particular game (with illustration) where a
> higher-ranked player made a fatal blunder but "tricked" a lower-ranked
> player by offering a draw (the lower-ranked player was eager to accept
> the offer without considering his superior position).
>
> However, I don't understand why Reshevsky's move was 'immediately'
> fatal. The move seems easily thwarted by Kxf2 (or no move at all by K,
> as K is not in check).
>
> What am I missing here???
>
> Thanks!
>
> --
> http://DavidFilmer.com
>




 
Date: 14 May 2006 02:19:21
From:
Subject: Re: Don't understand Wikipedia "draw" article on specific game


bruno de baenst wrote:
> Kxf2 Qxe3+ Kf1 Qxd3+ Kg1 Qxd4+ and white is 3 pawns down.

Hmmm. I make it that White looses a P, B, and N - which is pretty bad
EXCEPT the K does NOT need to take the N (at f2), as K is not in check
(instead, white can move or defend the bishop at d3). If K does not
take N, the rest of the play cannot develop, and white (a high-ranked
player) looses only a Pawn (to a much lower ranked player); few
high-ranked players would offer a draw upon the loss of only a pawn to
a much lower-ranked player (especially as white openes this series up a
knight to two pawns - the loss of an additional white pawn would still
leave white at a small advantage).

At any rate, the Wikipedia article says that white "saw at once that
[the move] loses IMMEDIATELY". To me, that implies mate in one (or at
least unavoidable mate).

I still fail to see why White's blunder led to "immediate" loss. I
wonder if the article has mis-represented the board layout for this
game.

--
http://DavidFilmer.com



  
Date:
From:
Subject:


  
Date: 15 May 2006 09:52:21
From: David Richerby
Subject: Re: Don't understand Wikipedia "draw" article on specific game


<usenet@DavidFilmer.com > wrote:
> At any rate, the Wikipedia article says that white "saw at once that
> [the move] loses IMMEDIATELY". To me, that implies mate in one (or
> at least unavoidable mate).

No, no. `Loses immediately' means that the game moves immediately to
a position where White (in this case) can only lose, rather than
gradually getting worse and worse to the point where White must lose.

Of course, the think about Wikipedia is that you can always go and
correct the article if you feel that it's wrong. I'd recommend not
doing so, in this case.

(Though it probably needs a bit of an edit: the claim that `In many
World Championship matches, draws have not counted' is a bit silly.
Sure, if you're in a `first to n wins' match, drawing games won't help
your score but drawn games don't help your score in `best of n'
matches, either, because a drawn game gives the same number of points
to both players.)


Dave.

--
David Richerby Psychotic Pants (TM): it's like a
www.chiark.greenend.org.uk/~davidr/ well-tailored pair of trousers but it
wants to kill you!


 
Date: 14 May 2006 16:32:08
From: Taylor Kingston
Subject: Re: Don't understand Wikipedia "draw" article on specific game



usenet@DavidFilmer.com wrote:
> bruno de baenst wrote:
> > Kxf2 Qxe3+ Kf1 Qxd3+ Kg1 Qxd4+ and white is 3 pawns down.
>
> Hmmm. I make it that White looses a P, B, and N - which is pretty bad
> EXCEPT the K does NOT need to take the N (at f2), as K is not in check
> (instead, white can move or defend the bishop at d3). If K does not
> take N, the rest of the play cannot develop, and white (a high-ranked
> player) looses only a Pawn (to a much lower ranked player)

No, White's position is devastated after 2...Qxe3 whether he plays
2.Kxf2 or not. He loses much more than a pawn.

> At any rate, the Wikipedia article says that white "saw at once that
> [the move] loses IMMEDIATELY". To me, that implies mate in one (or at
> least unavoidable mate).

That is not the meaning of "loses immediately" as the phrase is
commonly used in chess literature. A lost position need not involve
immediate or short-term mate. It can simply mean, as it does here, that
one side is down significant material without compensation, and has a
theoretically untenable position -- i.e. one in which mate can
eventually be forced even against the best defense. Mate may be 10, 20
or more moves in the future, but is inevitable given any reasonable
competence by the player with the advantage.
In the game in question, the position after 1...Nxf2 is so favorable
to Black that probably many players below Mastichiadis' level would be
able to win it even against a grandmaster. Reshevsky was extremely
lucky to dodge this bullet, and I'm sure Mastichiadis, after a few
minutes' reflection, was kicking himself for his unthinking acceptance
of the draw.

> I still fail to see why White's blunder led to "immediate" loss. I
> wonder if the article has mis-represented the board layout for this
> game.

No, the position is accurate, as confirmed by several databases.
I would guess you are not very familiar with the conventional
expressions of chess literature. Once you've read a few books, you will
find many examples where "loses immmediately" does not mean "mate in
one." For example, after 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6, it could be properly said
that 3.Nxe5?? loses immediately to 3...Nxe5. Obviously, there is no
checkmate on the horizon. What is meant is that 3.Nxe5?? gives White a
theoretically lost game by dropping a piece for insufficient
compensation.



 
Date: 15 May 2006 06:08:01
From: Taylor Kingston
Subject: Re: Don't understand Wikipedia "draw" article on specific game



That the Wikipedia article used a Reshevsky game as an example of
agreeing to a draw in a won position was quite appropriate. It used to
be said that Reshevsky was so adverse to draws that if he offered one,
his opponent probably had a mate in one. Here is another example of
Sammy dodging a bullet:

White: Kg1, Qc2, Rb1, Rf1, Bb2, Bd5; pawns - a2, c4, e3, f2, g2, h4
Black: Kg8, Qc7, Rb8, Rf8, Nd8, Bc6, Bf6; pawns - a7, b7, c5, f7, g6,
h5

I don't know if he offered Laszlo Szabo a draw in this position from
the 1953 Zurich Candidates tournament, but the Hungarian GM did have a
mate in two, starting with 21. Qxg6+, which he bypassed in favor of 21.
Bxf6 Bxd5 22. cxd5 Qd6 23. Qc3 Qxd5 24. Rfd1 Qf5 25. e4 Qe6 26. Bg7 b6.
Szabo now played the obvious 27. Bxf8, winning the Exchange, but he
could have had a whole Rook by 27. Bh6! f6 28. Qg3, threatening both
mate and 29. Qxb8. Instead, short of time, he offered a draw next move
which
Reshevsky accepted.



 
Date: 15 May 2006 12:16:55
From: Nick
Subject: Re: Don't understand Wikipedia "draw" article on specific game


David Richerby wrote:
> <usenet@DavidFilmer.com> wrote:
> > At any rate, the Wikipedia article says that white "saw at once that
> > [the move] loses IMMEDIATELY". To me, that implies mate in one
> > (or at least unavoidable mate).
>
> No, no. `Loses immediately' means that the game moves
> immediately to a position where White (in this case) can only lose,

'White...can *only* lose' unless Black later makes enough error(s).

> rather than gradually getting worse and worse to the point where
> White must lose.

'Loses immediately' means that the immediate position is lost
in theory. 'Loses immediately' does *not necessarily* mean
that there's an immediate forced mate.

--Nick



  
Date: 16 May 2006 10:33:36
From: David Richerby
Subject: Re: Don't understand Wikipedia "draw" article on specific game


Nick <nickbourbaki3@yahoo.co.uk > wrote:
> David Richerby wrote:
>> <usenet@DavidFilmer.com> wrote:
>>> At any rate, the Wikipedia article says that white "saw at once that
>>> [the move] loses IMMEDIATELY". To me, that implies mate in one
>>> (or at least unavoidable mate).
>>
>> No, no. `Loses immediately' means that the game moves
>> immediately to a position where White (in this case) can only lose,
>
> 'White...can *only* lose' unless Black later makes enough error(s).

Of course.


>> rather than gradually getting worse and worse to the point where
>> White must lose.
>
> 'Loses immediately' means that the immediate position is lost
> in theory.

It has to mean more than that or, once I've got into a losing posi-
tion, every move I make `loses immediately'. So `loses immediately'
means that the move takes me from a position that is not lost in
theory to a position that is, which is what I was trying to say by
excluding cases where the position gets gradually worse and worse.


Dave.

--
David Richerby Slimy Sumerian Windows (TM): it's
www.chiark.greenend.org.uk/~davidr/ like a graphical user interface that's
really old but it's covered in goo!