Talk:Saavedra position

Old talk

Beautiful study by Liburkin. If that only won second prize in the competition, the first-prize winner must have been a real stunner. Krakatoa 03:10, 17 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

In 1931, the magazine Shakhmaty Listok (chess papers) was renamed to Shakhmaty v SSSR (chess in USSR) so since the first prize originally appeared in Listok it is this one:

Aleksandr Seletzky
Shakhmatny Listok 1931, 1st prize

	a	b	c	d	e	f	g	h
8									8
7									7
6									6
5									5
4									4
3									3
2									2
1									1
	a	b	c	d	e	f	g	h

White to move and win.

Solution: 1.Kg2 Bd3 2.Rd1 Sf2! (if 2...Bc2, 3.Rd8 etc) 3.Kxf2 Ba7+! 4.Ke1! Bxg6 5.Rd7 Bb8! 6.Rxg7 Kh6! 7.Rxg6+ Kh7 8.Re6 Bg3+ 9.Ke2 Kxh8 10.Kf3 winning the bishop

--Con^structor 21:23, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Why move into a shorter forced mate?

When strictly analyzed, the Saveedra position is a forced mate in 26 for White, not in 12 moves as the article suggests. This is because Black has the option 3...Kb2. Then White must promote the pawn into a queen. This data is available in all endgame tablebases and easily explorable, for example, here. Shouldn't this be discussed in the article? I admit it sort of ruins the fun in it, but hey, what can you do? --ZeroOne 19:35, 14 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You are right. I'll add it. I wish I could find a reference, other than referring to a tablebase, but I couldn't find one. Bubba73 (talk), 03:39, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Correct but naive. Do you really think no one noticed this possibility 116 years ago? This is an endgame study; lines that immediately result in a obviously theoretically lost position are considered sidelines, even when resistance is prolonged. Tablebases have of course modified the definition of "obvious." Billbrock 04:00, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Since I hadn't heard it mentioned elsewhere (and I looked up several sources), I did assume that people had missed it, and that it had just been discovered with tablebases. I was wrong to assume that. (Also, I'm usually not that interested in compositions/studies or familair with their rules. I plead ignorance.) I agree with your changes. Bubba73 (talk), 04:29, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

OK. Given consensus, the third paragraph should probably be pulled back or moved in the article, but I'll let s/o else do that. Billbrock 14:15, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. It doesn't belong under History or Legacy, so I put it down at the end under Alternate line. Bubba73 (talk), 16:57, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've moved the "Alternate line" section before "Legacy" to make it clear that it's an alternative line in the Saavedra study, not the Liburkin. 91.105.5.159 20:01, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Em. Lasker and The Brooklyn Daily Eagle

The Daily Brooklyn Eagle has online scans covering 1841 to 1902, which is just enough to include the issue referenced in the text. Unfortunately I don't know how to link to specific pages or even specific days since it isn't clear to me how to make a stable link to pages under http://eagle.brooklynpubliclibrary.org, but it is easy to search for June 1, 1902, and jump to page 53. An greater disappointment is the quality of the scan of page 53. I have a hard time making out much of anything on that page. The only mentions of Lasker I see in the "In the Chess World" column is "According to [Dr.?] Berthold Lasker, his brother the world's champion, will [return?] to this country next October.", and a brief mention later of a Lasker encounter with Blackburne in conjunction with a comment on the Steinitz Defense (reported to be "very little in evidence nowadays"). I couldn't make out anything else associated with Lasker in the column. The position itself is marked "Chess Problem No. 443" and says it was "Composed by Gustav A. Barth for the [illegible] anniversary of the Staten Island Chess Club". I'm not sure how this is associated with Lasker. If we have any chess editors near Brooklyn Central Public Library who could check out the microfiche to see if they are easier to read, that would be cool. 165.189.101.177 (talk) 21:42, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

C class?

I think if this article had more references and inline citations, it would be C class. It pretty much covers the topic, what is lacking is references for some sections. Bubba73 ^{(Who's attacking me now?)}, 06:39, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Inline references are needed in History, Alternate line, and Legacy sections. But don't remove the material. Bubba73 ^{(Who's attacking me now?)}, 00:51, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Rynd-Lyman

The current article is missing a 2001 discovery by the Irish chess historian David McAlister. See http://timkr.home.xs4all.nl/chess2/prynd.htm for details. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.223.20.39 (talk) 16:36, 5 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Krabbé later discovered that the 2001 "discovery" was in error. See entry 151 [here]. 2.24.119.121 (talk) 02:03, 15 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]