K+B+N vs K

So , on average the above 3 listed correspondence GMs have a corr  rating about 500 points higher than their OTB ratings which means if I played corr I would be over 2600 !    

If you played correspondence chess  you would never get to even 2400.

Not to mention you are using others to disparage me.

By your poor reasoning, and since I beat many over-the-board USCF masters in correspondence--then my over the board rating should be above 2800.

Did you ever think that someone might make a disparaging cartoon about  you as you do about others?

Cartoon ?  Jerry ?  That was me laughing . Ponz ... it only makes sense that if a B class player can get the correspondence GM title then I shouldnt have any problems ... maybe I need a newer engine and thats about all I would need .  You dont really think that B class player is actually playing his games without engine assistance I hope ? 

Reb, the current correspodence players use a chess engine.

[which has nothing to do with me]

Reb, there is a hell of a lot more to current correspondence chess than you will ever realize or even imagine. 

 If you played you would never obtain the GM title in correspondence chess.

Because a player was a B class player years ago does not mean he is a B class player now.  I will bet you were a B class player at one time? I was never as low as a Class B USCF player.

I wish everybody had access to Cheron's 3-vol endgame master piece (I think it was only published in French and German in hardcover, which doesn't help most of us.) He broke it down into triangles of which there are 4 big, nearly half-board triangles, but only 2 for each bishop's color. It's child's play, once you know it, and can throw that "W" junk away.

A few weeks ago I saw a German edition on eBay, but they wanted something like US $150 for one volume (very good condition, though.) If anybody is within distance of the Rüsselsheim am Main, Germany, Public Library, they used to have all 3 German edition volumes, probably still with my fingerprints on them.

Cheron was amazing. He found some cooks to 1 or 2 Reti endgames and everybody knows Reti was too good to compose a problem with 2nd solutions and the like. Go to Chessbase's public site and look up Pal Benko's stuff about Reti to see if I'm lying, where he fixes a Reti cook even Cheron couldn't fix, but tried.

Many of you will be glad to hear that Pal is still chugging along in his 80s. But I think you have to be visiting Checko-Russo-Kasparopovia -- something like that -- to drink his good health in his presence nowadays. He doesn't live in the US anymore.

I have a story about Paul Benko.  My first USCF tournament was the U S Open in Omaha Nebraska in 1959.

Grandmaster Athur Bisguier won the tournament but his cousin [I think cousin] Pal Benko came in 2nd. Paul Benko is known for his end game columns.

So, I was playing a game against the Junior Champion of [I think] Oregon.

He was beating me. But I thought of a little combination where I would sacrifice a piece for 2 pawns.  I noticed Paul Benko watching from a slight distance. Why would this GM who was fighting for first be watching my game?

After I made the sacrifice I only had a lone King. My opponent had King plus a Bishop plus a Pawn.  But it was a known type of draw. The pawn was on the rook file [either a or h] but I could move my king to the corner and since his Bishop did not control the queening square--he could not win.

After I made the sacrifice my opponent was bewildered for a short time. Then Paul Benko came to the table and declared the position a draw!

My opponent accepted the draw.    

I like Pandolfini's method, which is similar to Cheron's. As Pandolfini said, it may not be the fastest way to win, but it sure is an easy system to learn. 

When I'm playing simuls, I often go in for the B+N endgame in at least one of the games. I like to show the students how it's done. 

While the ending occurs relatively rarely, it does teach the player how to make the K, B and N work together harmoniously. That in itself is an important lesson. Jeremy Silman blundered when he didn't include it in his book of essential endgames, but Capa, Keres and just about everyone else did!

Ponz, please leave my thread. This argument has nothing to do with this thread. If you wish to continue the discussion, start your own thread about it. Thank you kindly. 

and Reb, a bit of advice. Don't feed the troll.

I apologize for my part in derailing the thread and I did create a separate thread where we can continue our squabbling if he wishes . 

It is here : http://www.chess.com/forum/view/general/top-iccf-us-players

Well, you are apparently a very fine person and chess teacher.

Does Silman really not cover this?

Although I don't know him, my general impression of him is that he is very thorough. Well, none of us are perfect, but we can try for good, which he acieves more often than not.

So, next week don't be surprised to see this covered on chess.com from Jeremy's perspective. He would like the way these pieces coordinate in a goal, best starting with all 4 pieces in the corners and the losing K in a wrong corner.

It's been decades since I had access to Cheron; so, I'm not sure anymore how badly the winning side pieces were placed (Cheron would figure out the worst, mathematically speaking.) But... all 4 corners seems worst, from a visual perspective, and right up Silman's alley.

I hope Jeremy corrects this "mistake."

Furthermore, I have no idea how NMReb never got a chance to be in this ending in a long career. I've played at least 3, he none. Chess gods are appently picky about such things.

What a great tribute to Pal, Ponz111, because it shows he is one of our best human beings on this planet, not just a GM.

His name is Pal Benko , not Paul .  

In a minor defense of people calling Pal Benko "Paul", early on when he came over, Chess Life called him Paul several times. I have a Hungarian friend who played with Pal. From all accounts (his, and others), GM Benko has a fantastic sense of humor. Apparently, Pal never really minded being mistakenly called Paul by Americans who didn't know better. 

But of course, his name is Pal, not Paul.

Ah, the truth is that the person being referenced here is Pal Benko (really good at endgames). not Paul anything. But this has almost nothing to do with the topic of my thread. Why do people want to discuss other things like this on my thread about a specific endgame?

IM Karl Burger tried once to show me how to do the KBN mate with the " triangles " method and I found it more difficult than the W method so I stick with the W method . 

I'm not sure which meathod my puzzle shows, but I like it because if you get your opponent into this position, it is just a countdown until they are checkmated.

Your puzzle shows the W method , same one I use . 

ok. cool. I use the same meathod as an NM, i think that's pretty cool.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hWwuy-aiK1M     W method 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PWZ7h2yrJME

deletang ( 3 triangles ) method 

For me it's harder getting the king to the edge without it slipping around and maybe to another corner because my pieces are a little uncoordinated than it is finishing it off after it's pressed against the edge.

I use the idea of the triangles to help work it towards an edge, then I sort of free form it until it's in that book position in the "safe" corner, then I use W to mate it.

It was really hard the first time I "learned" it, then it's easier each time I revisit it. Just like B+R vs R, which I think I have down pretty well now.

Q vs R is still a little mysterious to me. Vs a computer that will move the rook away before the philidor position and force you to be accurate is usually too hard for me.

B+B vs N on b/g 2/7 is impossible lol

Never tried N+N+p