following rapid game:
This automatic recapture turns the position into astatic one and Black's blockade ought to hold up against White's attempts at siege warfare because of the strongly reduced amount of material on the board. Thedynamic [54.¥xg6! ¤f6 55.¢b7 ¤d5 56.¥e4+- would have allowed Kramnik tosecure the promotion of his passed c-pawn directly.]
[Surprisingly, even54...g5!? is playable: 55.¥g6 g4 56.¥xe8 g3 57.c7 g2 58.c8£ g1£+ 59.¢a6
(59.£c5+ £xc5+ 60.¢xc5 ¢xe8=)
59...£d4= and, paradoxically, White's extra piece cannotguarantee a win, because the pawnless endgame of queen and bishop againstqueen is generally speaking a draw.]
[55.¥xg6 a3 56.¥xe8 a2 57.c7 a1£58.c8£ £b2+
Of course, not
58...£d4+?? 59.£c5+ £xc5+ 60.¢xc5 ¢xe8 61.¢d6+-)
This blockade can be lifted with the decisive engame weapon of zugzwang. Getting rid of the e-pawn by [55...¢e6 56.¥c2 ¢xe557.¥xg6 draws, e.g 57...¤d6 58.c7 ¢e6 59.¥h5 ¤c8+ 60.¢b7 ¤e7 61.¥g4+ ¢d6 as we get a well-known drawing fortress.]
56.¥c2 g5 57.¥f5
Now the bishopcontrols matters according to the principle of the single diagonal. It can alwaysforce Black into zugzwang by waiting moves, so the black fortress cannot hold outfor long.
57...¤c7 58.¥h3 ¤a8+ 59.¢c5 ¢e7 60.¢d5 ¤c7+ 61.¢c5 ¤a862.¥g4 ¤c7 63.¢b6 ¢d8 64.¢b7 ¤e8 65.e6 ¤d6+ 66.¢b8 ¤b5 67.¥h3
and Khalifman admitted defeat in view of the fresh zugzwang.
When the world's top players + engines analyze a tactical position, then the resultmust be perfect play. Really? The Dortmund game Jakovenko-Kramnik shows adifferent picture. Jakovenko's 19.Kh1 was reputedly prepared, Kramnik reactedpromptly. But his 20…f6 is a clear mistake, as pointed out by 21-year-old BrazilianGM Alexander Fier. It appears that the players and seconds had not set up their engines properly or taken into account previous games, e.g. a correspondencegame from 2002 that escaped everyone's notice.
Jakovenko,Dmitrij (2760) - Kramnik,Vladimir (2759) [C42]
Dortmund SuperGM Dortmund (9), 11.07.2009
[Analysis by GM Fier,Alexander]
1.e4 e5 2.¤f3 ¤f6 3.¤xe5 d6 4.¤f3 ¤xe4 5.d4 d5 6.¥d3 ¥d6 7.0–0 0–08.c4 c6 9.£c2 ¤a6 10.a3 ¥g4 11.¤e5 ¥xe5 12.dxe5 ¤ac5 13.f3 ¤xd314.£xd3 ¤c5 15.£d4 ¤b3 16.£xg4 ¤xa1 17.¥h6 g6 18.¤c3 £b6+19.¢h1
When Kramnik played this line against Bacrot some rounds earlier, I was wondering what he would do against 19.Kh1... To me, this is the critical test for Black. [19.¦f2 ¦fe8 20.£f4 £c7 21.¦e2 ¦e6 22.b4 was Bacrot - Kramnik whichended in draw.]
19...£xb2 20.£f4 f6? Diagram: