Page 2 of 4
Re: Queen vs three pieces
Posted: Tue Apr 28, 2020 10:52 pm
by E Michael White
I have 43 games which reach that position. The top 5 W players by rating – Bronstein, Horvath,
Psakhis, Xu Hanbing and Sundarararajan all played 10.exf6 and all won. Overall figs:-
Code: Select all
Move games % score
10.exf6 32 71.9%
10.Qd1 4 75%
10.Qa3 4 37.5%
10.Qc2 3 83.3%
oddly my engine best is 10.Qa3
I also have 7906 games where at some point the material is Q v 3 minor bits, so it seems popular with some.
Re: Queen vs three pieces
Posted: Wed Apr 29, 2020 9:39 am
by MartinCarpenter
There's those profoundly daft lines in the Kalashnikov Q & 3 connected passed pawns vs 4(!) pieces. I couldn't resist playing it once in the Manchester evening league when I got the chance.
I'm sure the game is riddled with holes, I vaguely remember that the computers don't mind the line so much in principle.
There are of course even more dramatic variants than this like one side getting 8 extra pawns but no Q - quite a balanced game iirc.
Re: Queen vs three pieces
Posted: Wed Apr 29, 2020 1:20 pm
by Matt Mackenzie
The (almost unknown in practice) endgame 4 minor pieces v Q is almost always a win for the pieces, of course.
Re: Queen vs three pieces
Posted: Wed Apr 29, 2020 5:16 pm
by Jonathan Bryant
E Michael White wrote: ↑Tue Apr 28, 2020 10:52 pm
I have 43 games which reach that position.
Thanks, after Jack posted his game I suddenly remembered that I’d seen this position more than 30 years ago in an old Grunfeld book. At least I’m pretty sure I did. If I *do* recall correctly - not guaranteed - this is an a6 response to the Qb3 Grunfeld. And the authors recommened
... Nfd7 on the grounds that the queen sac is a good response to
... Be6.
I haven’t owned that book for many years. I might have to find a second hand copy on amazon to satisfy my curiousity.
Re: Queen vs three pieces
Posted: Wed Apr 29, 2020 5:38 pm
by Roger de Coverly
Jonathan Bryant wrote: ↑Wed Apr 29, 2020 5:16 pm
If I *do* recall correctly - not guaranteed - this is an a6 response to the Qb3 Grunfeld.
Consistent with that, the earliest examples of the position from the 1970s feature the top Hungarian players of the era, the .. a6 defence being one of their specialities. In current practice.. Nfd7 rather than .. Be6 or .. Ng4 is now seemingly the main line.
Re: Queen vs three pieces
Posted: Wed Apr 29, 2020 9:27 pm
by Jonathan Bryant
Roger de Coverly wrote: ↑Wed Apr 29, 2020 5:38 pm
Jonathan Bryant wrote: ↑Wed Apr 29, 2020 5:16 pm
If I *do* recall correctly - not guaranteed - this is an a6 response to the Qb3 Grunfeld.
Consistent with that, the earliest examples of the position from the 1970s feature the top Hungarian players of the era, the .. a6 defence being one of their specialities. In current practice.. Nfd7 rather than .. Be6 or .. Ng4 is now seemingly the main line.
That’s how I remember it. And both the authors of the book - Adorjan & Dory - are/were Hungarian
Re: Queen vs three pieces
Posted: Thu May 14, 2020 8:43 pm
by Jonathan Bryant
Jonathan Bryant wrote: ↑Wed Apr 29, 2020 5:16 pm
I haven’t owned that book for many years. I might have to find a second hand copy on amazon to satisfy my curiousity.
Well eventually I broke and had to buy a copy. Only cost me 38p + p&p. Bargain.
The relevant note is on page 39
“The apparently good developing move 9 ... Be6? Leaves White with a winning position after a not very complicated queen sacrifice: 10 ef! Bxb3, 11 fg Kxg7, 12 ab Nc6, 13 Be3 Nb4, 14 Rc1 Qd7, 15 Be2, when White’s three minor pieces proved much stronger than Black’s queen in Bronstein - Poutiainen, Tallinn 1977”
Re: Queen vs three pieces
Posted: Thu May 14, 2020 9:19 pm
by Nick Grey
1 e4 d6 2 d4 Nf6 3 Nc3 g6 4 Bc4 Bg7 5 Qe2 Nc6 6 e5 is fun unless black plays Nd7.
I have far better results on black side declining the 3 pieces than accepting.
Though when I play g6 I try for these imbalances all the time.
Re: Queen vs three pieces
Posted: Fri May 15, 2020 5:19 pm
by Jonathan Bryant
E Michael White wrote: ↑Tue Apr 28, 2020 10:52 pm
]
oddly my engine best is 10.Qa3
I gave HIARCS on my phone 20 minutes to think about it and it agrees with your machine.
Humans - back in the 80s at least - seem to favour giving up the Queen.
I started this thread because I saw the position in a Beat the Masters article. 11/13 IMs and GMs wanted to play 1 exf6. The only two dissenters - Paul Littlewood and David Norwood (then still an IM) - both went for 1 Qa3.
I wonder if there would be any change if you gave the position to a comparable group of today’s Masters.
Re: Queen vs three pieces
Posted: Fri May 15, 2020 6:09 pm
by MartinCarpenter
I accidentally tried it with c6 rather than a6 in. Then LC0 greatly prefers the queen sac. (70% vs ~50% for Qd1)
With a6 in instead, it likes both Qa3 and exf6. 62.5% for the Q sac, ~65% for Qa3.
You can see why. The b5 pawn basically just drops for rather vague compensation after Qa3, so why not? That sort of slightly 'random' tactic is something more modern players are very much more aware of after training so much with computers.
Oh, it truly hates that Kalashnikov Q&3 vs 4 pieces thing. 90% expected score to black. Spoil sport
Re: Queen vs three pieces
Posted: Tue May 26, 2020 1:06 pm
by Jonathan Bryant
I came across another queen v three pieces game recently: Platanov - Minic, Sochi 1968. A draw in only 21 moves but it was pretty wild while it lasted.
Master Game fans may recognise the similarity to Quinteros - Browne from the 1981 series.
Re: Queen vs three pieces
Posted: Tue May 26, 2020 1:14 pm
by Jonathan Bryant
Jonathan Bryant wrote: ↑Fri May 15, 2020 5:19 pm
I started this thread because I saw the position in a Beat the Masters article. 11/13 IMs and GMs wanted to play 1 exf6. The only two dissenters - Paul Littlewood and David Norwood (then still an IM) - both went for 1 Qa3.
I’ve begun blog dedicated to Beat the Masters called
The Abysmal Depths of Chess.
I’ve published three positions so far. The one from this thread can be found here:
https://theabysmaldepthsofchess.blogspo ... 9569343179
If you don’t remember Beat the Masters it’s a pretty simple idea:
each month Chess would publish 9 positions. You chose what your move was in each one and then in the follow-up article you compared with the Masters’ choices (it was people like Flear, Plaskett, Arkell, Davies, Conquest, Kosten). The more you matched the more points you scored.
I’m publishing articles twice a week, each one looking at a different position.
Re: Queen vs three pieces
Posted: Tue May 26, 2020 3:41 pm
by John McKenna
Are you ever going to do Q v. 2 minor pieces, Jon?
Re: Queen vs three pieces
Posted: Tue May 26, 2020 6:53 pm
by Jonathan Bryant
John McKenna wrote: ↑Tue May 26, 2020 3:41 pm
Are you ever going to do Q v. 2 minor pieces, Jon?
If it comes up in Beat the Masters, John, I’ll be sure to do a post on the position and let you know.
In the meantime, there’s Speelman’s idea in the Modern to keep you going ...
Re: Queen vs three pieces
Posted: Wed May 27, 2020 12:13 am
by John McKenna
Thanks very much, Jon.
I had looked at that line of play for myself (from Ray's side), last summer, up to and including 7... Qb6, but was not brazen enough to brave it out in a competitive game. Now I know why.