Beautiful puzzle. The start is easy, but later on you see how subtle it is made, because it is not common that KBp can win an endgame against a king where the pawn must promote on a field with a different color then the color of the bishop. The threat for stalemate is the move on which the situation creates a new problem.
Nice difficult puzzle
Sort:
This must be a theoretical setup, though. Because how could black got into this position? What was blacks previous move?
ElKitch wrote:
This must be a theoretical setup, though. Because how could black got into this position? What was blacks previous move?
dunno maybe Kc8-b8 because the opponent wasn't smart or something?
If I would have to imagine that black should have played rationally, he would have played 1. ... ab6:+ Kb6: dc6: with a simple win. If the last move of white is that he captured on c6 giving check, black should have played 1. ... dc6: 2. b7+ (The king standing on c8) Kb8 3. ba8:+ Ka8: 4. Ka5 and white resigns. Or he should have blundered like rookendings suggested.
Wonderful Puzzle...
A beutiful puzzle indeed. I managed to solve it without mistakes (other than that I wanted to play 7.Kb6). For those that thinks it's strange to win with a bishop of the opposit colour to promote that clearly isn't the case here since the king can win on his own even if he wanted to sacrifice the bishop on e7 (not necessary since he can win that pawn, but anyway). Here is a similar pawn ending to prove my point.
An attempt for last natural (but not best) moves (although I think it is a study and finding the move before this position looks unnatual)
I learned a bit from that. Thanks!
That is not a similar ending, because the pawn on d7 is missing. With that pawn is white not able to force the black king away from the c-line. In the study is it for white possible to get the opposition even with the pawn on d7 because of that presence of the bishop. Without that bishop is that not possible.
For some more information about pawn endings, see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/King_and_pawn_versus_king_endgame#The_king_has_the_opposition
This pawn ending is definitely a draw.
Take a further look at this information and look to the rules of Centurini:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chess_endgame#Bishop_and_pawn_endings
This situation should be a draw, because of the first rule. This situation turns out to be an exception to that rule. I still think this is a subtle situation. :-)
I did say a similar endgame where white sacrifices his bishop on e7. I know that endgame I made is draw with the pawn there and that white can win the pawn on e7 without sacrificing the bishop, but it is still similar.
Nice,cool game you rock
@Loek, I'm not sure why you mention that rule since it is about Bishop and pawn versus bishop on the same color (no opponent with bishop here). There is a similar rule for a- and h-pawn, but not in the centre with king+bishop+pawn VS King
LoekBergman wrote:
If I would have to imagine that black should have played rationally, he would have played 1. ... ab6:+ Kb6: dc6: with a simple win. If the last move of white is that he captured on c6 giving check, black should have played 1. ... dc6: 2. b7+ (The king standing on c8) Kb8 3. ba8:+ Ka8: 4. Ka5 and white resigns. Or he should have blundered like rookendings suggested.
This issue..how can this position arise in a game?... misses the point.Puzzles and studies are not actual games(though they may be) conditions, e.g. k and r. in this puzzle. You should see these more as a chess sub-set or a saparate branch.This eliminates the endless--but the king can't get there on his last move---and just enjoy solving the problem.
Puzzles can be from actual games, studies are originally not from an actual game. "How could this position arise" is another interesting topic either with both players trying to reach the position or how it could arise with logical moves. There are also specific puzzles how a position can occur after a specific amount of moves. This position is theoretically possible to reach just like most puzzles are. Weather it is the point of the puzzle to figure out how it could occur doesn't change it from a good thinking exercise to think about.
@eddysallin: I completely agree with you. That is why I start with: 'If I would have to imagine...'.
@Martin0: First of all: beautiful reverse engineering of moves. I really like it.
Well, if you take the bishop away in the ending of the study, then is it for white impossible to make any progress. The pawn on d7 is very important and makes a big difference in my opinion, because the pawn prevents the white king to make use of the sixth rank. In the study the king and bishop could win the pawn without any sac and if it would happen, then it could be done like this:
Let's exchange: Yeah, that is wrong indeed. I was looking for rules about bishops versus pawns. Should not have used it. :-)
I can't argue weather it's obvious or not for most people that the bishop can be sacrificed on d7 leading to a win. The pawn makes a difference indeed. I was intending to do it via Bf8-Bxd7, but it works on f6 too since the pawn race is clearly a win. My main point was just to show a similar win and if you consider it to not be similar enough to make the win obvious I'm not going to argue.
I just noticed:
Why not 1. b7 d5 2. Rc8#
?
You have a hanging rook on c6.
1.b7?? dxc6 2.bxa8+ Kxa8 and black will win the pawn ending
My dad had a little booklet on chess from 1977 and I looked through it. I found a nice puzzle by A. Selsniew. Perhaps you guys have seen it before, that would be a shame :)