[Event "BCF-ch"] [Site "Eastbourne"] [Date "1990.??.??"] [Round "?"] [White "GM Arkell - IM Ledger"] [Black "4 vs 3 -"] [Result "1-0"] [ECO "A12"] [Annotator "GM Arkell / Stockfisch 15.1 / øj"] [PlyCount "199"] [EventDate "1990.07.??"] [EventType "swiss"] [EventRounds "11"] [EventCountry "ENG"] [SourceVersionDate "2023.04.07"] {[%evp 0,199,19,29,21,-11,26,-6,18,17,18,20,9,19,26,19,47,5,41,41,47,18,56,58,51,50,79,55,58,9,37,10,2,-84,-20,-17,-25,-17,3,2,32,7,-6,-6,-10,-5,26,1,14,0,0,15,18,0,20,21,22,17,17,3,11,22,19,-3,34,5,-27,-18,-13,-25,-40,0,-8,-39,7,-10,-10,-10,36,31,115,105,105,121,114,117,109,111,118,42,119,116,117,111,101,109,102,118,122,125,126,120,131,119,126,121,119,75,118,51,124,128,136,142,158,152,159,157,158,137,150,151,153,152,157,147,168,162,188,193,193,188,193,193,193,191,195,133,163,156,184,180,208,211,208,208,216,215,220,208,220,220,215,220,218,217,220,219,220,219,219,219,236,236,296,208,287,349,363,273,275,271,271,271,327,282,282,282,334,284,507,507,507,507,537,517,537,537,557,557,547,567,804,812,822,962,972,972,982,992,992,992] A P P E T I T T V E K K E R E N - 4 vs 3 ¤ ¤ ¤ GM Arkell er kjent for sitt "Arkell's hierarchy of Pawns". I boka Chess for Life forklarer Matthew Sadler fremgangsmåten som om Arkell bevisst går motstrøms anerkjent sjakkstrategi. Han søker bondeformasjonen 4 mot 3 bønder på kongefløyen, noe som i de aller fleste tilfeller betegnes som en remis-stilling. For å oppnå 4 mot 3, velger han åpninger som gir 2 mot 3 bønder på dronningfløyen, noe som i eldre strategibøker gir fordel til motparten. ¤ ¤ ¤ MINORITETSANGREPET - 2 vs 3 Han skaper disharmoni ved hjelp av minoritetsangrepet, to bønder angriper tre, og gir motparten svakheter. Arkell jobber i kjent farvann, og er sjelden i tvil om egen spilleplan. Når han ikke øyner en forsert vinst, holder han det hele i gang ved å tålmodig forsøke å forbedre stillingen sin, bit for bit. ¤ ¤ ¤ Her følger hans eget syn på strategien sin: "... I rarely look to create unfathomable complications, I don't carry around an armory of opening traps, and I don't concern myself with trying to force a win from the earliest stages. Instead, my opening repertoire and subsequent play are all about creating a framework from which I can try to acquire the tiniest of advantages, and then, inch by inch, convert it into something tangible. I win many of my games in the ending. Very often I am not sure at what point my opponent's position has deteriorated from what was difficult but tenable, to a forced loss. ¤ ¤ ¤ Her kommer en smakebit på 4 vs 3. Motstanderen er IM Andrew Ledger, kjent som en solid og posisjonell spiller som sjelden gjør feil ... Kommentarene på engelsk er Keith Arkells egne, hentet fra videoen Arkell's Endings:} 1. Nf3 Nf6 2. c4 c6 3. b3 g6 4. Bb2 Bg7 5. e3 O-O 6. Be2 d5 7. O-O Re8 8. Qc2 a5 9. d3 Na6 10. a3 Bf5 11. Nbd2 Rc8 12. Rfd1 Qb6 $6 (12... Bg4) (12... b5) 13. Bd4 $16 Qc7 14. Rac1 $6 {I'm a little puzzled why I didn't play the natural 14 Qb2 here. It makes the difference between being comfortably better and no more than equal.} e5 $11 15. Ba1 e4 16. Nd4 exd3 17. Bxd3 Bxd3 18. Qxd3 Ng4 19. g3 Ne5 20. Qe2 dxc4 21. Nxc4 Nxc4 22. Qxc4 Rcd8 23. b4 {? As so often, my plan is to hammer away at Black's Queenside pawn structure. If successful I'll emerge a pawn up, with the one I treasure most in chess sitting quietly on e3 holding everything together.} axb4 24. axb4 Qb6 25. Rb1 Nc7 26. Qc5 Qa6 27. Qa5 Qxa5 28. bxa5 Na6 29. Rdc1 Rd7 30. Rb6 Ra8 31. Kg2 Ra7 32. Bb2 Nc7 33. Rb3 Ne8 34. Bc3 Nd6 35. Ra1 Ne4 36. Bb2 Nd2 $6 {? Andrew has played excellently for 35 moves but now begins to drift a little. I think he stands a bit better if he sits tight and just improves hs position, starting perhaps with 36...Ra6.} 37. Rc3 $11 (37. Rd3 $2 Nc4 38. Bc1 Rxa5 (38... c5 39. Ra4 $1 Nxa5 40. Rda3 b6 41. Nb5 $15) 39. Rxa5 Nxa5 40. Ra3 Bxd4 41. exd4 Nc4 $19 {(StF 15.1)}) 37... Ne4 (37... Bxd4 38. exd4 Ne4 (38... Rxd4 $2 39. Rxc6 Rd8 (39... bxc6 40. Bxd4 Ra6 41. Rd1 Ne4 42. Bb6 f5 $18) 40. Rc7 Nb3 41. Ra3 Nxa5 42. Rf3 $18) 39. Rc4 $11 {(StF 15.1)}) 38. Rc2 Rd5 {Now at last I have a chance to realise my Queenside ambitions.} 39. a6 Rxa6 {A little short of time, my opponent couldn't find any means of holding on to his pawn.} (39... f5 40. axb7 Rxb7 41. Ra8+ Kf7 42. Bc1 c5 43. Ne2 $11 {(StF 15.1)}) 40. Rxa6 bxa6 41. Rxc6 Rd8 {41...a5 42 Rc8+ Bf8 43 Ba3 Nd6 44 Ra8 with Nc6 in the air is not very appealing.} (41... a5 42. Rc8+ Bf8 43. Ba3 Nd6 44. Ra8 a4 45. Rd8 h6 46. Bb4 h5 47. Nb5 Rxb5 (47... Nxb5 48. Rxd5 Bxb4 49. Rxb5 Be7 50. Ra5 a3 51. Kf3 Kg7 52. Ke4 $18) 48. Bxd6 Rd5 49. Rxf8+ Kg7 50. Rd8 Ra5 51. Bc7 $18 {(StF 15.1)}) 42. Rxa6 $14 Nc5 43. Ra7 h5 {An important defensive move. If he lets me play g4 for free there will be many more options for increasing the pressure, such as h4 and h5 or h4 and g5.} 44. Nc6 Re8 $6 (44... Rd2 45. Bxg7 Kxg7 46. Ne5 $11 {(StF 15.1)}) 45. Bxg7 (45. Bd4 $14) 45... Kxg7 46. h3 {? ¤ ¤ ¤ NB! EN SMAKEBIT FRA OPPSKRIFTEN This ending may not be won by force, but it is much more painful for Black with Knights on the board. People have often asked me how you are supposed to set about winning such positions, given that pawn advances lead to exchanges and make the draw more likely. In my experience the best way is first to put the pawn on g5. This fixes the f7 and f6 points. If Black then breaks with ... f6 he will have a weak g pawn against two flexible pawns, with the White e pawn eventually becoming dangerous. If Black chooses not to break, the ideal set up (with the pawn on g5) is Knight on g4, pawns on f4 and e3 and King on f3. The Knight is then particularly troublesome, eyeing e5, f6 and h6. White is then also ready to play e4 and e5 or e4 and f5 depending on circumstances.} Kf6 47. Ra5 Ne6 48. f4 Rc8 49. Ne5 Rc7 50. Kf3 Rc3 (50... Kg7 $14) 51. Ra6 (51. g4 hxg4+ 52. hxg4 $16) 51... Rc7 52. Nd3 Rc3 53. Nf2 Kg7 54. Ra4 Rc1 55. g4 hxg4+ 56. hxg4 Rf1 (56... f6 $14) 57. Ke2 $16 Rg1 58. g5 {With stage one accomplished I can make threats against f7, forcing Black's Rook onto the defensive.} Rc1 59. Ra7 Rc7 60. Ra8 {I wasn't sure whether the Knight ending was winning, but I suspected not, and feared it may even have been quite easy to draw. There is a myth that Knight endings are like King and pawn endings, and that therefore an extra pawn usually wins, but this is far from true with pawns on one flank. If I had this position today I would prefer 60 Ra6 Nc5 61 Rd6 Nb7 62 Rb6 followed by Ng4, not allowing ...f6.} (60. Ra6 Nc5 61. Rd6 Nb7 62. Rb6) 60... f6 61. gxf6+ Kxf6 62. Ng4+ Kg7 (62... Kf5 $2 63. Kf3 Rc3 64. Ra5+ Nc5 65. Ra7 g5 66. Rf7+ Ke6 67. Rf6+ Ke7 68. fxg5 Rc1 69. Rf5 $18) (62... Ke7 63. Rg8 Kf7 64. Rb8 $14) 63. Ra6 $2 (63. Kf3 $14) (63. Kd3 $14) 63... Re7 $2 (63... Nxf4+ $1 64. exf4 Rf7 65. Nf6 (65. Ke3 g5 66. fxg5 Rf5 67. g6 Rg5 68. Kf3 Rxg6 $11) 65... Rxf6 66. Rxf6 Kxf6 67. Kf2 Ke6 $11 (67... Kf5 68. Kf3 $11 {(StF 15.1)})) 64. Kf3 (64. Rc6) 64... Nf8 65. Kg3 Ne6 66. Kf3 Nf8 67. Nf2 Nd7 68. Rd6 Nf6 (68... g5 69. f5 Ne5+ 70. Ke2 Ra7 71. Re6 Ra2+ $11 {(StF 15.1)}) 69. e4 {? There are those who squander this precious thrust as early as move one, but I prefer to get myself organised first.} Ra7 70. e5 Nd7 $2 (70... Nh5 71. Kg4 Ra2 72. Nd3 $11 {(StF 15.1)}) 71. Kg4 $18 Nf8 72. Ne4 Ra1 73. Ng5 Rg1+ 74. Kf3 Rf1+ 75. Kg3 Rg1+ 76. Kf2 Ra1 77. Rc6 Ra7 78. Kf3 Kg8 79. Kg4 (79. Ke4) 79... Re7 (79... Kg7) 80. Kf3 Kg7 81. Ke4 Kg8 82. e6 {We were still beyond the range of my ability to calculate the win by force, and I could have continued improving my position with, eg, 82 Kd5 (to d6) but it is hard to criticise the text move!} (82. Rc8 Kg7 83. Kd5 Rd7+ 84. Kc6 Rd3 85. Rc7+ Kh6 (85... Kg8 86. e6 Rc3+ 87. Kd6 {(#29)}) 86. Rf7 {(StF 15.1)}) 82... Kg7 83. Ke5 Ra7 {[#]} 84. Kd6 {This is a bit unnecessary as I can win comfortably with 84 Rc8 first, viz: 84..Ra5+ 85 Kd6 Ra6+ 86 Rc6 Rxc6+ 87 Kxc6 Kf6 88 Kd6 Nxe6 89 Nxe6 Kg5 90 Ke7.} (84. Rc8 Kg8 (84... Ra5+ 85. Kd6 Ra6+ 86. Rc6 Ra8 (86... Rxc6+ 87. Kxc6 Kf6 88. Kd6 Nxe6 89. Nxe6 Kf5 90. Ke7 Ke4 91. Kf6 Kd5 92. Ng5 Kc5 93. Kxg6 Kb4 94. f5)) 85. Kd6 Ra6+ 86. Kc7 Ra7+ 87. Kc6 Re7 88. Kd6 Ra7 89. Re8 Ra6+ 90. Ke5 Kg7 91. Re7+ Kg8 92. Kf6 Kh8 93. Rf7) 84... Kf6 85. Ne4+ Kf5 86. Nc5 Nh7 87. Nd7 Ra8 88. e7 g5 {After 88...Kxf4 there are many ways to win, but specifically I had it in mind to play 89 Rc1, then Rf1+ and Rf7. Against 88... g5 I was already seeing the final pattern, though not all the details...} 89. fxg5 Kxg5 (89... Nxg5) 90. Nb6 Rh8 91. Nd5 Kg6 92. Rc1 Kg7 93. Rg1+ {...but by now everything was crystal clear.} Kf7 94. Rf1+ Kg7 {Or 94...Ke8 95 Nc7 #} 95. Nc7 Nf6 96. Ke6 Rh6 97. Rxf6 Rxf6+ 98. Kd5 {98 Ke5 Rf1 = wouldn't be too clever.} Rf5+ 99. Kd4 Rf4+ 100. Kd3 {? The finish would be 100...Rf3+ 101 Ke2 Rf8 102 Ne6+} 1-0