Conversations with the Gods

by Jonathan Speelman
7/3/2022 – Unlike in ancient times, in our (chess) world, the oracles are not priestesses but silicon based. For high grade but not necessarily perfect information, we turn to computer engines. The crucial thing is that, however splendiferous the software, it has to be we who control the process. We need to put the time to work through the lines with the engine to understand why we should play a specific move in a given position. | Pictured: Ganesha, a Hindu deity, the deva of intellect and wisdom

Winning starts with what you know
The new version 18 offers completely new possibilities for chess training and analysis: playing style analysis, search for strategic themes, access to 6 billion Lichess games, player preparation by matching Lichess games, download Chess.com games with built-in API, built-in cloud engine and much more.

Silicon-based oracles

[Note that Jon Speelman also looks at the content of the article in video format, here embedded at the end of the article.]

King CroesusWhen King Croesus of Lydia sent emissaries to consult the Oracle he was told, according to Heerodotus, that “If Croesus goes to war he will destroy a great empire”. Emboldened, he did wage war against the Persians, but had misinterpreted the words since it was his own empire that went to ruin!

In our world, the oracles are not priestesses but silicon based. For high grade but not necessarily perfect information, we turn to computer engines — which nowadays are quite often able completely to solve positions which still seem confusing to our mere human eyes: while for perfection we interrogate endgame tablebases.

Now extending to all seven piece endgames and I believe a few with eight as well, these provide exact information as to who “should” win (we do know which empire will fall) and how long it “should” take. It’s a realm which is often opaque to us, with manoeuvres which extend far beyond our capacity (and indeed the capacity of the best engines as well). But like engines, they can be a very valuable analytical tool if used correctly.

The crucial thing is that however splendiferous the software, it has to be we who control the process. If, for example, a computer tells us that an opening line is good then it's very probably correct, but this is of no practical use if the position brings us out in a rash — unless that is we have the time to work through the lines with the engine to understand why sufficiently well that we can play the position.

There have been at least a couple of examples of this in the Candidates tournament. The most striking was in Nakamura v Caruana in which they reached this position.

 
Nakamura vs. Caruana - Candidates (R8)

My first reaction on seeing this, was that the Black pawn phalanx was absolutely terrifying, but Nakamura had done enough work to know that, even if he hadn’t investigated this exact position, it was much more nuanced. It was probably about equal here but Caruana made some mistakes, notably giving the white knight the d4 square in return for supposed pressure down the f-file, and Nakamura won a superb game.

Another example was in Duda v Caruana.

 
Duda vs. Caruana - Candidates (R10)

If I didn’t know better, I’d imagine that with the half open f-file and the bishop’s diagonal, this would be good for Black. But actually after 16.b5! the black knight has to go into temporary exile on a5 and White is able to shut out both the black minor pieces at least for the moment.

Fabiano Caruana

Fabiano Caruana at the Candidates Tournament | Photo: FIDE / Stev Bonhage

There have been a number of somewhat analogous top games in recent years in which the supposed attack along the f-file has gradually dissipated, after which the defects of Black's pawn structure have become paramount. But of course it’s always a delicate balance: if White wins it may be quite slowly, if Black breaks through then it will be with a splat!

Turning to tablebases, my initial reason for choosing this topic today was an incredibly difficult ending of RP v R which a pupil Kristian Qiao recently kindly showed me. Absurdly, it was apparently from a beginner’s book, but I’m far from convinced that even Magnus Carlsen himself would have solved it correctly at the board. Certainly when I started looking I tried a couple of lines, came to an erroneous conclusion and then started to talk to the tablebase.

 
Black to play and draw

It told me that only a single move draws and what I did then was to follow the drawing line, making the winning attempts which I imagined I would have played at the board, and then try a somewhat different defensive which my lord and master informed me failed. Why not? Well, it turns out that with the rook on a different file, then there’s a line in which you can't give check at the crucial moment.

I’ve recently noticed several instances of unusual endgames without pawns. It’s interesting to know the true evaluation, if of only limited practical value:

 
New ...
Open...
Share...
Layout...
Flip Board
Settings
MoveNResultEloPlayers
Replay and check the LiveBook here
1.e4       e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bb5 a6 4.Ba4 Nf6 5.0-0 Nxe4 6.d4 b5 7.Bb3 d5 8.dxe5 Be6 9.c3 Bc5 10.Nbd2 0-0 11.Bc2 Nxf2 12.Rxf2 Bxf2+ 13.Kxf2 f6 14.Nf1 14.exf6 Qxf6 15.Nf1 Ne5 16.Be3 Rae8 14...fxe5 15.Kg1 Qd6 16.Be3 Bf5 17.Bb3 Rad8 18.Qe1 Na5 19.Qf2 Nb7! 20.Re1 c5 21.Ng3 21.Bg5 c4 22.Bxd8 cxb3 23.Bh4 bxa2 24.Ra1 Bb1 21...Bd3
22.Qd2 c4?! 22...e4 23.Nh4 g6 24.Nh1 24.Bh6 c4 25.Bd1 d4 23.Bd1 Rd7 24.Bf2 Rdf7 25.Nh1! e4 26.Nd4 Qg6 26...Nc5 27.Bh5 Stockfish 27.h4! Nc5 27...h5! 28.h5 Qd6 29.Bg4±
Apaarently even += according to Stockfish! 29...h6 30.Qe3 Qf4 31.Qxf4 31.Bf5! 31...Rxf4 32.Ne6 Nxe6 33.Bxe6+ Kh7 34.Bxd5+- R8f5 35.Bc6 Rxh5 36.Bd4 Rhf5 37.Nf2 Rf7 38.b4! h5 39.a4 39.Be8! 39...bxa4 40.Bxa4 h4 41.Be3 R4f5 42.Ra1 h3 43.Ra2 hxg2 44.Bd1 R7f6 45.Bg4 Rd5 46.Kxg2 Rg6 47.Kg3 Bf1 48.Bd4 Bd3 49.Kf4 Kg8 50.Bf5 Rh6 51.Ng4 Rhd6 52.Ne3 Rb5 53.Bc5 Rf6 54.Ke5 Kf7
55.Nd5!? 55.Rf2 a5 56.Be6+ Ke8 57.Rh2 Rh6 55...Rxf5+ 56.Kxf5 e3+ 57.Ke5 e2 58.Bf2 Rb8 59.Be1 Re8+ 60.Kf4 g5+ 61.Kg3 Re6 62.Kf2 Rh6 63.Ke3 Re6+ 64.Kf2 Rh6 65.Ne3 Rf6+ 66.Kg3 Rf1 67.Ng2 Rf6 68.Bf2 Kg6 69.Ra5 Re6 70.Ne1 Bf5 71.Nf3 Rd6 72.Nd4 Bd3 73.Re5 Kf6 74.Nf3
1–0
  • Start an analysis engine:
  • Try maximizing the board:
  • Use the four cursor keys to replay the game. Make moves to analyse yourself.
  • Press Ctrl-B to rotate the board.
  • Drag the split bars between window panes.
  • Download&Clip PGN/GIF/FEN/QR Codes. Share the game.
  • Games viewed here will automatically be stored in your cloud clipboard (if you are logged in). Use the cloud clipboard also in ChessBase.
  • Create an account to access the games cloud.
WhiteEloWBlackEloBResYearECOEventRnd
Nakamura,H2760Caruana,F27831–02022C82FIDE Candidates 20228.3
Duda,J2750Caruana,F27831–02022C53FIDE Candidates 202210
R+RP v R--2022
Ding,L-Praggnanandhaa,R-½–½2022A28Chessable Masters KO 20223.23
Amonatov,F2622Samant,A2433½–½2022B66International open GM3.1
Martirosyan,H-Can,E-1–02022D44Sharjah Masters9

Select an entry from the list to switch between games



In over 4 hours in front of the camera, Karsten Müller presents to you sensations from the world of endgames - partly reaching far beyond standard techniques and rules of thumb - and rounds off with some cases of with own examples.


Links


Jonathan Speelman, born in 1956, studied mathematics but became a professional chess player in 1977. He was a member of the English Olympic team from 1980–2006 and three times British Champion. He played twice in Candidates Tournaments, reaching the semi-final in 1989. He twice seconded a World Championship challenger: Nigel Short and then Viswanathan Anand against Garry Kasparov in London 1993 and New York 1995.

We use cookies and comparable technologies to provide certain functions, to improve the user experience and to offer interest-oriented content. Depending on their intended use, analysis cookies and marketing cookies may be used in addition to technically required cookies. Here you can make detailed settings or revoke your consent (if necessary partially) with effect for the future. Further information can be found in our data protection declaration.