Endgame study

It reminds me of this one, which has the same winning idea.

White to play and win

@n9531l: Can't find the solution to #2. 1. a6? g3! 1. Kg1? g3!

1.Kg1 g3 2.Kg2.  Don't stop there.

Found it! Never saw that pawn sac before though I solved a lot of endgames. Brilliant!

Composer is J.Behting, 1911.

Composers of #1 are Kling & Horwitz, 1851.

Here the fight of the Kings against 3 connected Pawns is expanded with some different motifs. Not new I assume but still an interesting study.

If at the end you only see the solution moves next to the diagram, then click one extra time on the exclamation mark (!). The analysis will be added.

So on move 13, Black has a choice between letting White give away all his men and being stalemated, or giving away all his own men and getting himself stalemated.

Interesting study. What is its source?

Source: ArIsKtOtLe, ChEsS.cOm, 11/8/2016.

I think it is new. At least, it's not one of the 85,619 studies in HHdbV.

I expect it is not new in the thematic sense. The stalemate pattern with the cornered king is problably known. It may be new in liaison with the 'Behting theme' (which was kind of hard to construct) but that too would surprise me. Not easy to locate such thematic combinations in the database, I presume!?

Would this count as the same theme?

White to play and draw

Yes, a well done search! It shows both themes discussed! There are quite a number of differences with my study though. As a judge I see plusses and minuses in both studies and there is no obvious reason to discard either of them. So lets keep them both!

Note that the Behting sac is always in a different phase from the stalemates. In both of these studies the stalemates are in the solution, the Behting sac is in a try but this could be reversed.

@n9531l: While on my bike ride today, I realized that black didn't need the Behting sac in Kovalenko's study after 1. g7? which means that the theme is not really there.

Could you provide me with the author solution (including tries)? I may have overlooked something or Kovalenko may confirm my findings. Thx in advance.

Kovalenko=V
(=0000.45b2e6)
2.hm Kaiev MT Shakhmatnaya Poezia#0048

Shakhmatnaya Poezia/4-6 1991
EG#08513. 1.h6!
[ 1.g7? Kf7 2.h6 a3+ 3.Kb1 b2!
4.g6+ Kg8 5.Ka2 b1Q+ 6.Kxb1 c3! ]
1...a3+ 2.Kb1
[ 2.Ka1? c3 3.h7 ( 3.g7 Kf7 4.g6+
Kg8 5.Kb1 b2 ) 3...c2 4.h8Q c1Q# ]
2...c3! 3.g7!
[ 3.h7? a2+! 4.Ka1 c2 5.h8Q c1Q# ]
3...Kf7
[ 3...c2+ <main> 4.Kc1 Kf7 5.g6+
Kg8 6.h7+ Kxg7 7.h8Q+ Kxh8 8.g7+
Kh7 9.g8Q+ Kxg8 ]
[ 3...a2+ <main> 4.Ka1 Kf7 5.g6+
Kg8 6.h7+ Kxg7 7.h8Q+ Kxh8 8.g7+
Kh7 9.g8Q+ Kxg8 ]
4.g6+!
[ 4.Ka1? c2! 5.g6+ Ke7! 6.g8Q
c1Q# ]
4...Kg8 5.Ka1! b2+
[ 5...c2 6.h7+ Kxg7 7.h8Q+ Kxh8
8.g7+ Kh7 9.g8Q+ Kxg8 ]
6.Kb1 b3
[ 6...c2+ 7.Kxc2 b3+ 8.Kb1 a2+
9.Kxb2 a1Q+ 10.Kxa1 b2+ 11.Ka2
b1Q+ 12.Kxb1 ]
7.h7+ Kxg7 8.h8Q+ Kxh8 9.g7+ Kh7
10.g8Q+ Kxg8
½-½

Thank you! As I expected, Kovalenko is fooling us a bit. He plays the Bething method after 1. g7? with the move 5. .. b1Q+. However, he doesn't need to as 5. ... b3+ wins as well. He is aware of this or he would have added an exclamation mark to the 5. ... b1Q! move (if not 2 exclamation marks). I do not blame him; these small manipulations are permissable in the competition for prizes. It is up to the judges and testers to notice it and it is quite possible they did.

It means that the Behting theme is not present in this study indeed!

Edit: Moreover, after 5. ... b1Q+ 6. Kxb1 Kovalenko plays the 2nd Behting move 6. ... c3! with an exclamation mark. But this one is really off limits since 6. ... b3 also wins with the white king in the wrong tempo.

By the way, you can get an original copy of the 1851 Kling & Horwitz book, in good condition, from Amazon for about $2500. Or, you can do as I did, and buy a hardcover facsimile copy from India for $26. The title is Chess Studies; or, Endings of Games. It has an interesting two-page preface which starts with the following three sentences:

Whether, due to a want of attractiveness in the subject itself, or to deficiencies in the works that treat of it, the fact is undeniable that the theory of game endings as a branch of the study of Chess, has been strangely neglected. Every amateur of moderate skill is "up" in all the lore of "openings," and can discourse learnedly of the "Giuoco Piano," the "Evans'," the "Scotch," the "Muzio," and other favourite methods of beginning the game; but how few, comparatively are there, except amongst the best players, who thoroughly understand the principle of even so simple a manœuvre as the opposition of the Kings, or who know the shortest road to victory with the two Bishops or a Bishop and Knight; or, to go a little deeper, can show which are the positions wherein a Rook wins against a Knight, a Rook and Bishop against a Rook, and demonstrate the result of the Szen Pawn Problem, from any one of its manifold variations? And yet, to attain anything like proficiency in chess play, a knowledge of these terminations is indispensible; not because any one of them is of frequent occurrence in actual play, but because they teach the almost irresistable force which certain pieces acquire when their powers are accurately directed and combined.

Interesting quote! Shows that Kling & Horwitz have a much deeper understanding of the effects of studying endgames than players who would study this book only to play better endgames.

Besides that, the occurrence of all endings is much more frequent than everybody knows. They do not occur on the board though, but in the players heads as "positions to avoid or aim for". The very fact that players know these endings prevents them from manifesting in a game. Who would be so stupid to land on the minority side in a K+B+N vs K ending knowing that his opponent will finish it flawlessly? And if it is unavoidable, you resign before it is there. Foreknowledge is the enemy of play. It is one of the examples of the "invisible factors" which control life. They also play a major role in my book on retro logic.