Updated every Monday, Wednesday and Friday ... and maybe other days too.
I know what you're going to say. Rxf7 only draws. it's more important to bring the king across.
Rook against three can be a real horror as three connected pawns supported by a King can be winning. It wouldn't be rare either as it can be a logical consequence of sacrificing pawns for a promotion.Table-bases are in agreement with comment 1 that Rxf7 only draws, but it would be easy to stumble into a loss playing an inferior move in the R v 3. If it were a match or tournament where not losing was important, Rxf7 would be the pragmatic choice. An actual game reaching this position was Gurevich v Glek from 2002 which was played by Gurevich accurately according to the tablebases.RdC
Rxf7 does draw.Any offers as to how/why moving the king does better?
Ok my account goes1. Kc3 f52. Kd3 f43. Ke2 g5 (... Kg3; 4. Rg7) (... Kg4; 4. Kf2)4. Kf3 ... Seani
This one used to be considered important because it arises in some analysis by Steckner of a tricky R+4 v R+3 endgame. (See http://www.chesscafe.com/text/dvoretsky99.pdf) However the analysis was later superseded so the defender is not forced to go for this 3 pawns v rook position any more.
Good spot.Yes, I got this from the bit of Hawkins' book where he looks at the Steckner position.More in the solutions post which is due on the 6th January.
Post a comment