Kamsky-Radjabov: rook+2 v rook

I was intrigued by the ending of Kamsky-Radjabov on Tuesday (23/4/13, Grand Prix, Zug). Since it was a working day, I could only dip into the games now and then; fortunately, because of the time difference between Zug and Manchester, I can watch relatively more towards the end, when the games can be at peak interest level.

I looked at this particular game at this position, with Radjabov to move. Tiemour had six minutes left for his next nine moves, to the next (60 move) time control; Gata had almost an hour.

The arrow on the Playchess board showed Re6-e4; I thought it a bit odd, though when writing this blog, I see it was actually Re6 * e4, capturing black's last pawn. As I was thinking (not knowing that the pawn had been on e4) 'why didn't he play 1 h6+ or 1 Rg6+’, and wondering what black would do ( 1…Kf6-g5 seemed favourite, though 1…Kf6 2 h6 might be the move), Radjabov resigned! The exclamation mark and emphasis was because of my shock, not the objective merits of resigning.

Now I don't doubt at elite GM level, and probably far below it, this ending is trivial for white: but lower down in the foothills, where I am, things aren't so clear. I have played it once at 5min (for rest of the game) vs Hiarcs (rated 2925, on my iPad) and couldn't beat it: my lack of time and the threat of stalemate (king at h8, rook at g7, supported by h6 pawn) were too much. I have added this ending to my list of endings to understand…an ever growing, and never diminishing, list.

I have a lot to learn.

Posted with Blogsy