Kamsky-Radjabov R, g and h pawn v R

I have had some time to look further at Teimour's resignation in his recent game against Kamsky. Not surprisingly, the Nalimov Tablebases do confirm that white is winning, and it is just my lack of knowledge which caused me to be interested. The fact that I have never systematically studied the endgame is thus highlighted.

White's win comes in various stages: nothing unusual here, just technique. The first need is to improve the position of the rook, and bring black's king under control. So, after 1 Re4 Kf6, white plays Re8-g8-g6 and then sees what black does. Black's best is to have his king on g7/h7, where there are stalemate possibilities. In fact, there are considerable stalemate possibilities.

What I missed the other day, when playing Hiarcs, was how to improve further, and specifically the point of a subtle, mysterious move, Kf2. I eventually twigged. The idea is that with Ph6, Pg4, Re6, Kh8, white can play g5 without the pawn being biffed by Ra5 (or Rb5, or whichever file the rook is on): if the king is on g2, then after Ra5 g6 black has Rg2+! picking up the g pawn, and drawing. Neat.

There is more to study: Dvortesky's Endgame Manual, or van Perlo's 100 endings you must know, and no doubt countless other similar books, show some of the cases where two connected pawns don't win. I have played this ending out a few times now with Stockfish ( I will challenge Hiarcs when I have mastered the ending) and whilst I can get to positions similar to the above, since I know now the Kf2 side-step, alas!, I do sometimes fall into stalemate tricks: but I have at last beaten Stockfish twice.

Should Radjabov have resigned? He certainly shouldn't have resigned had he been playing a journeyman GM.

Posted with Blogsy