lichess.org
Donate

Instructive bishop endgame win by Botvinnik

Brian-E

What do you think ? Is Stockfish right ? And why so ? Can you explain in human readable terms ?

The only thing I can suggest is that 48...g6 allows the white bishop access to the square f6 which blockades all Black's pawns and prevents the brilliant ...g5 move. 59.Bc5 is marked as a blunder because, I guess, White should play 59.Bf6 instead, drawing.

But it's a really difficult endgame.

> What do you think ? Is Stockfish right ? And why so ? Can you explain in human readable terms ? The only thing I can suggest is that 48...g6 allows the white bishop access to the square f6 which blockades all Black's pawns and prevents the brilliant ...g5 move. 59.Bc5 is marked as a blunder because, I guess, White should play 59.Bf6 instead, drawing. But it's a really difficult endgame.
achja

@Brian-E said in #2:

The only thing I can suggest is that 48...g6 allows the white bishop access to the square f6 which blockades all Black's pawns and prevents the brilliant ...g5 move. 59.Bc5 is marked as a blunder because, I guess, White should play 59.Bf6 instead, drawing.

But it's a really difficult endgame.

Agreed that it is a very difficult endgame. And actually maybe the the game was adjourned and that Botvinnik could analyse for long in between (Through the book one can actually see a "trademark" Botvinnik thing in several games, which is repeating moves a few times to reach the 40 moves time control, which shows something about Botvinnik being perhaps a time trouble player, but perhaps also showing a professional attitude by using the thinking time well).

Your suggestion 59.Bf6 is losing because black grabs the e3 pawn, and white cannot really take on b3 because of 60...d5d4+ check. Either 59.Kd3 or 59.Kd2 look drawish according to Lichess Stockfish.
The comments in the book also suggest that the win was kind of on a very thin line, and having said that, Kotov probably failed to see the 59... g6g5!! and 60...d5d4! ideas coming (First 59...d5d4!! also wins by the way, as I noted in the study, but not visible in the blog post).

I am a little bit surprised that Lichess Stockfish analysis, with maybe powerful network of computers (Fishnet ?) but very little thinking time, found what, Botvinnik in 1955, and Houdini chess engine and an IM in 2013 did not find about the 48...g7g6?? blunder.

@Brian-E said in #2: > The only thing I can suggest is that 48...g6 allows the white bishop access to the square f6 which blockades all Black's pawns and prevents the brilliant ...g5 move. 59.Bc5 is marked as a blunder because, I guess, White should play 59.Bf6 instead, drawing. > > But it's a really difficult endgame. Agreed that it is a very difficult endgame. And actually maybe the the game was adjourned and that Botvinnik could analyse for long in between (Through the book one can actually see a "trademark" Botvinnik thing in several games, which is repeating moves a few times to reach the 40 moves time control, which shows something about Botvinnik being perhaps a time trouble player, but perhaps also showing a professional attitude by using the thinking time well). Your suggestion 59.Bf6 is losing because black grabs the e3 pawn, and white cannot really take on b3 because of 60...d5d4+ check. Either 59.Kd3 or 59.Kd2 look drawish according to Lichess Stockfish. The comments in the book also suggest that the win was kind of on a very thin line, and having said that, Kotov probably failed to see the 59... g6g5!! and 60...d5d4! ideas coming (First 59...d5d4!! also wins by the way, as I noted in the study, but not visible in the blog post). I am a little bit surprised that Lichess Stockfish analysis, with maybe powerful network of computers (Fishnet ?) but very little thinking time, found what, Botvinnik in 1955, and Houdini chess engine and an IM in 2013 did not find about the 48...g7g6?? blunder.
Brian-Eedited

Yes, I felt the e and f pawns were unimportant and the blockade from the f6 square might be sufficient to draw (as we all know being even several pawns down in opposite bishops endings can often not matter if the defending bishop can blockade). And I thought the fact that the white king cannot capture on b3 didn't matter if the bishop prevents ...b2 (from the much more effective square f6 instead of a3).

But I'm not arguing with stockfish obviously!

Yes, games were adjourned in those days soon after the move 40 time control, and for important games (especially in the Soviet Union of those days) a whole team of seconds and other hangers-on were drafted in to analyse the adjourned position. It could be that it wasn't Botvinnik himself who found the ...g6-g5!! resource (but then that's speculation and, as world champion, of course he was up to it and may well have found it himself). It's amazing what passed for acceptable ethics just a few decades ago!

In your blog post you ask us what was wrong with the move 48...g6. If it isn't giving up the f6 square for White's bishop, what do you think it is?

Yes, I felt the e and f pawns were unimportant and the blockade from the f6 square might be sufficient to draw (as we all know being even several pawns down in opposite bishops endings can often not matter if the defending bishop can blockade). And I thought the fact that the white king cannot capture on b3 didn't matter if the bishop prevents ...b2 (from the much more effective square f6 instead of a3). But I'm not arguing with stockfish obviously! Yes, games were adjourned in those days soon after the move 40 time control, and for important games (especially in the Soviet Union of those days) a whole team of seconds and other hangers-on were drafted in to analyse the adjourned position. It could be that it wasn't Botvinnik himself who found the ...g6-g5!! resource (but then that's speculation and, as world champion, of course he was up to it and may well have found it himself). It's amazing what passed for acceptable ethics just a few decades ago! In your blog post you ask us what was wrong with the move 48...g6. If it isn't giving up the f6 square for White's bishop, what do you think it is?
achja

@Brian-E said in #4:

Yes, I felt the e and f pawns were unimportant and the blockade from the f6 square might be sufficient to draw (as we all know being even several pawns down in opposite bishops endings can often not matter if the defending bishop can blockade). And I thought the fact that the white king cannot capture on b3 didn't matter if the bishop prevents ...b2 (from the much more effective square f6 instead of a3).

Right.

But I'm not arguing with stockfish obviously!

:) It would be interesting to check the game with Stockfish on a powerful computer giving it more thinking time.

The book author with Houdini gives very different evaluations compared to Lichess Stockfish in 2023.
In the book : 48...g6 goes without any comments. Then 54.Bf6 gets a ?! because the author claims with a very long variation that 54.Bxb4! is supposedly a clear draw. The author writes about 56.Bf6? Now black is winning, which contradicts with what Stockfish shows.
Then about 59.Bc5 (without ? or ??) the author writes : "The position truly looks like a dead draw. After all, White's bishop easily covers all his pawns, while his king halts the b3-passer". I like the games in the book, but I noticed a clear mistake in the book earlier

Yes, games were adjourned in those days soon after the move 40 time control, and for important games (especially in the Soviet Union of those days) a whole team of seconds and other hangers-on were drafted in to analyse the adjourned position. It could be that it wasn't Botvinnik himself who found the ...g6-g5!! resource (but then that's speculation and, as world champion, of course he was up to it and may well have found it himself). It's amazing what passed for acceptable ethics just a few decades ago!

Indeed. But in 1955 there were no chess computers in use, so analysing with your second(s) and chess friends seems relatively reasonable to me.

In your blog post you ask us what was wrong with the move 48...g6. If it isn't giving up the f6 square for White's bishop, what do you think it is?

Good question, thanks for bringing that up. I still do not know. g7g6 blocks the square for the black king, but I doubt that is the reason. Another idea is that by playing g7g6 white suddenly has a different f4f5 option, which perhaps could draw easily, but not sure about that.

@Brian-E said in #4: > Yes, I felt the e and f pawns were unimportant and the blockade from the f6 square might be sufficient to draw (as we all know being even several pawns down in opposite bishops endings can often not matter if the defending bishop can blockade). And I thought the fact that the white king cannot capture on b3 didn't matter if the bishop prevents ...b2 (from the much more effective square f6 instead of a3). > Right. > But I'm not arguing with stockfish obviously! :) It would be interesting to check the game with Stockfish on a powerful computer giving it more thinking time. The book author with Houdini gives very different evaluations compared to Lichess Stockfish in 2023. In the book : 48...g6 goes without any comments. Then 54.Bf6 gets a ?! because the author claims with a very long variation that 54.Bxb4! is supposedly a clear draw. The author writes about 56.Bf6? Now black is winning, which contradicts with what Stockfish shows. Then about 59.Bc5 (without ? or ??) the author writes : "The position truly looks like a dead draw. After all, White's bishop easily covers all his pawns, while his king halts the b3-passer". I like the games in the book, but I noticed a clear mistake in the book earlier > Yes, games were adjourned in those days soon after the move 40 time control, and for important games (especially in the Soviet Union of those days) a whole team of seconds and other hangers-on were drafted in to analyse the adjourned position. It could be that it wasn't Botvinnik himself who found the ...g6-g5!! resource (but then that's speculation and, as world champion, of course he was up to it and may well have found it himself). It's amazing what passed for acceptable ethics just a few decades ago! > Indeed. But in 1955 there were no chess computers in use, so analysing with your second(s) and chess friends seems relatively reasonable to me. > In your blog post you ask us what was wrong with the move 48...g6. If it isn't giving up the f6 square for White's bishop, what do you think it is? Good question, thanks for bringing that up. I still do not know. g7g6 blocks the square for the black king, but I doubt that is the reason. Another idea is that by playing g7g6 white suddenly has a different f4f5 option, which perhaps could draw easily, but not sure about that.