MARK RUBERY CHESS
There are many books published on various subjects that purport to reveal the truth of the area under discussion. Whether it be the latest treatise on the ‘Lost City of Atlantis’ or a new theory on the origin of the Pyramids, it is mostly unverifiable speculation. We chess players, however, do not have to rely on guesswork or assumptions for the essence of the truth in basic chess positions. All we need to do is refer to the series of books entitled ‘Secrets of…’ published by John Nunn some two decades ago. With the astute use of computer databases Nunn has sifted through an enormous amount of silicon analysis to arrive at conclusions that either refute or confirm ancient and almost sacred endgame theory. The English GM makes an unlikely Indiana Jones, and he endured substantial criticism from some quarters for what has been termed as the ‘Final Encyclopedia’, and thus establishing boundaries in chess that can never be crossed again.
By 2012, endgame table-bases had solved chess for every position with up to seven pieces (the positions with a lone king versus a king and five pieces were omitted because they were considered uninteresting) The impact this has on practical chess, now that the era of adjournments is long gone, is negligible as the subject matter is so complex and our time limits so fast that mastery of this phase is most unlikely-computers aside that is.
This position has previously been reached on at least two occasions in master chess: Stein-Dorfman, USSR 1971 and Sakaev-Sunye, Sao Paulo 1991 and also before my eyes during fifth round at Capelle la Grande 2014. There I witnessed a Scottish IM trying to save this ending against a Russian GM, when both players were down to the 30 seconds a move increment. He eventually erred by putting his bishop on the wrong square.
The position has also been the subject of research by the endgame analyst, Horwitz, over a hundred years ago and none of the grandmasters playing Black found Horwitz’s winning line! The GM’s attempts were: Stein-Dorfman 1 Ke1 Kb1? (1...Na4!) 2 Kd2 Kxa1
3 Kc1! (Putting the king on the same colour as the knight, so now the knight cannot lose a tempo and shift the White king off c1 or c2. Thus for instance if the N was on a8 then Kc2 or on b8 then Kc1 would draw) 0,5-0,5
Sakaev-Sunye 1 Ke3 Kb1? (1...Na4!) 2 Kd2 Nc4+ 3 Kd1 Na5 4 Bg7 Nb3 5 Bf6 Nc5 6 Bg7 (6 Ba1?? {any other square up the diagonal draws} Na4! 7 Kd2 Nb2 0-1 Mannion-Danin, Capelle la Grande
2014)…Nd3 7 Ba1! Nb4 8 Bg7 Nc2 9 Kd2 Na3 10 Kd1 Nc4 11 Ba1 Ne3 12 Kd2 0,5-0,5
The solution by Horwitz is 1 Ke1 Na4! (The key
to the solution) 2 Ke2 Kc1! (Forcing the king off
its ideal square) 3 Ke1 Nc5 (The bishop now cannot move because of the threat of ...Nd3+
and ...Nb2) 4 Ke2 Kb1 (Moving in for the kill) 5
Kd1 (5 Kd2 Nb3+)...Na4 6 Kd2 Nb2 7 Kc3 Kxa1
8 Kc2 Nd3 winning
Thus a puzzle that a number of GMs were unable to answer over the board in tournament play, can be solved by a computer in the blink of an eye or an analyst from a previous century over a number of melted candles.