2014 Sinquefield Cup is LIVE! Open to ALL MEMBERS! Join GM Ashley, GM Seirawan and WGM Shahade! Click here to watch!
Upgrade to Chess.com Premium!

"Theoretically drawn position"


  • 4 years ago · Quote · #1

    Banala

    I was reading Herman Grooten's "Chess Strategy for Club Players" here the other day, a book I would highly recommend. I came across an endgame between Kotov and Najdorf, and I just have to share this one with you, as I laughed my panties off reading it. Post a picture afterwards! I'll use Mr. Grooten's words from here on.

     Here the Argentinian sacrificed both his rooks for both white pawns, in order to reach the notorious two knights ending:

    1...Rxf4+ 2. Kxf4 Txg7 3.Nhg7+

    Still relishing his own witticism, Najdorf got a suprise when his opponent played on. Flabbergasted, the Argentinian asked why his opponent wanted to continue in this "theoretically drawn position". "But didn't you know that someone in Tbilisi has finally found how this extremely difficult endgame can be won?", the Russian replied with a deadpan expression. When the blood had drained from Najdorf's face, Kotov laughed and offered a draw in his turn. This episode is described in Tim Krabbe's book New Chess Curiosities.

  • 4 years ago · Quote · #2

    Mainline_Novelty

    =) owned, great joke! (is there any more u can post?)

  • 4 years ago · Quote · #3

    Dragec

    you have a whole game here(I have set a position several moves before the end):

  • 4 years ago · Quote · #4

    Dragec

    Try to win it yourself.

  • 4 years ago · Quote · #5

    TomBarrister

    Two Rooks will generally win against two Knights.  Unfortunately, there's no way for White to get rid of the pawns without giving up at least one of the Rooks.

  • 4 years ago · Quote · #6

    Frankdawg

    This position is clearly a draw. Black has no way to stop the pawns w/o losing material, white has no way to promote the pawns, and 2 knights are not enough to force checkmate w/o any other material on the board.


Back to Top

Post your reply: