43... Bc7 almost looks like a blunder, though it's hard to suggest a move as black is possibly lost already. 43... Rg8, at the very least, seems to avoid losing a second piece.
At move 77 we reach a classic position with bishop + knight where the opponent's king is in the wrong corner. Ushenina seems to remember the beginning of the sequence, as she executes the first couple of moves correctly, but then strays and never manage to get it right.
GM Epishin also failed to mate with B+N in the 2001 Bundsliga.
Not just women who screw it up, I see.
Yeah that's pretty tragic. She was in the perfect position and started the maneuver but the key moment slipped her mind.
... I'm sure Girya would have executed it properly ...
She did, a couple years ago: http://www.chessgames.com/perl/chessgame?gid=1480964
... I'm sure Girya would have executed it properly ...
She did, a couple years ago: http://www.chessgames.com/perl/chessgame?gid=1480964
That was an awesome endgame 
There's been a lot of threads about B+N mate over the years. And strong, sometimes titled players almost have consensus that it is a waste of time to learn this ending. I suppose they figure they'll find it OTB if the situation arises.
So, I'm not really surprised that a top player fails this. I think a bunch of GMs would be found out out it they were in the same situation, Ushenina is just unlucky she was the one.
I learnt this long time ago. I used to practice it against engines @5min control once a month or so, but I havn't done that for a long time. Till this morning. I can still take out Stockfish, Houdini, Toga and Robolito with this ending. So, once learnt properly, you never forget.
And another thing, with tablebases off, @ 5 mins, none of the engines can win this against me...
Wow, that is really surprising.
Also how large is your database? 26 games isn't much to go on.
1.25 million games (Fritz 11, latest game played 2007). Mostly master games with higher ratings. That's why I only get 26 games below 2100 elo. If you include higher rated players, you get more games.
hehe I'm rated 2000. I tried against my engine. The first two times I stalemated (I was careless), but then I was more careful and won in 34 moves. I know how to win from the stick postion. The problem is that chess.com gives the same position for bishop and knight mate every time!
Why does everyone call it basic?
Yeah, its not too hard and all but its such a corner case that its probably not even worth putting time into learning how its done.
My coach told me a story about this 1900 who thought like you. He never studied it, nor practiced it. It came up in one of his OTB games and he agreed to a draw. Then he thinks "Pah, it's just one game!". But no! It happened again! It (a few years later) happened again! From then on he studied it till he knew it by heart. THEN it never came again.
"THEN it never came again."
lol, just his luck 
I practiced mate from the Ushenina position. It was easy.
It is true, however, that if you skip the time learning the B+N mate and spend the extra time on Rook and pawn endings, in the longer term you will earn more points.
According to Karsten Müller and Frank Lamprecht, both endgame authorities, in their Fundamental Chess Endings, the B+N mate occurs in about one game in 5000 in practice, whereas Rook and pawn endings constitute roughly half of all games that get to an endgame.
I think it is also true that understanding the B+N mate, you gain collateral benefit. While I dont ever get the ending, I frequently find myself thinking about it during games where B+N work together.
Apparently it's not a problem for Grischuk: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xG3XSNytwCc
Well, of course there's no problem for him. Grischuk is a top ten and he's the Blitz Champion right now.
Polgar playing blindfold when still 17 had no trouble blitzing out the finish:
http://www.chessgames.com/perl/chessgame?gid=1092636
It is true, however, that if you skip the time learning the B+N mate and spend the extra time on Rook and pawn endings, in the longer term you will earn more points.
Only one thing, however.
Any strong player can learn how to B+N whithin a day (maximum...) and master the technique for a lifetime (might need to refresh memory once or twice for 10 minutes as years pass, but that's about it).
Rook and pawn endings can be studied for a lifetime, and still new ideas and subtleties can be found.
I hope I made my point clear.
I played an OTB game against someone i felt was about 2100. He had the B+N against me, but my knowledge of it seemed to be better than his at the time. I kept slipping through the cracks and he couldn't catch me in 50 moves.
There is no knowledge required from the weak side. You only have to try going towards the "wrong" corner. Both Kasparov and a lowly rated player would make the same moves. It's the strong side that rules the show.
Yes, i didn't mean for it to sound like there was much to it from the weak side. But not knowing it would lead to someone easily getting pushed to the wrong corner. Also, it allowed me to recognize whether my opponent knew it. If he had shown signs that he did, i would have just resigned.
The WGM seems to have some idea what she was doing. It's possible she had knowledge of it and forgot. The game looked like it was very long, so mental exhaustion could have contributed to it. Time-wise, she might have had time on the clock, but the 50 move rule is another clock. Allowing the opponent to get away the first time adds a different "time" pressure.
The WGM seems to have some idea what she was doing. It's possible she had knowledge of it and forgot.
She's a GM not WGM, that's why people are making such a big deal out of this.
The WGM seems to have some idea what she was doing. It's possible she had knowledge of it and forgot.
She's a GM not WGM, that's why people are making such a big deal out of this.
I thought the women had a separate title... not that it makes much sense now that i think about it.
The WGM seems to have some idea what she was doing. It's possible she had knowledge of it and forgot.
She's a GM not WGM, that's why people are making such a big deal out of this.
I thought the women had a separate title... not that it makes much sense now that i think about it.
No, you're right, there is a WGM title. But some women are good enough to meet the GM norm and be rated a "full" Grandmaster, which is plainly the case here.
Or to put the same thing another way, she is a woman Grand Master, not a Woman Grand Master.
The WGM seems to have some idea what she was doing. It's possible she had knowledge of it and forgot.
She's a GM not WGM, that's why people are making such a big deal out of this.
I thought the women had a separate title... not that it makes much sense now that i think about it.
No, you're right, there is a WGM title. But some women are good enough to meet the GM norm and be rated a "full" Grandmaster, which is plainly the case here.
Or to put the same thing another way, she is a woman Grand Master, not a Woman Grand Master.
Thanks. I had just read a previous post mentioning 27 women gaining a GM title. Calling her a WGM is a mistake on my part.
GM Epishin also failed to mate with B+N in the 2001 Bundsliga.
http://www.chessgames.com/perl/chessgame?gid=1533865