Lessons From Fagernes II

THE following position could have been reached in my round-two game.

How would you assess the position, bearing in mind it is White to play?

*****

*****

*****

*****

*****

*****

*****

*****

*****

Black is ahead by the exchange and four pawns, and threatens to win the a2 pawn, giving him four connected and passed queenside pawns. But Black has doubled g pawns, and the white d pawn will win back the exchange.

Komodo14.1 reckons the position is completely equal, although Stockfish15.1 gives Black a slight edge. This surprised me - I thought Black must be winning - but concrete analysis seems to support this.

One white move, 24 Ra1?, can be dismissed as horribly passive, while 24.Rf2?? is a blunder thanks to 24...Rf8+. The 'obvious' 24.d8=Q?  Rxd8 25.Bxd8 is also pretty hopeless after 25...Rxa2.

White has to find 24.Re1, the threat being to play 25.Re8+, winning the black queen's rook and following up with promoting the d7 pawn to a queen.

Black can prevent this easily enough with 24...Kf7, but then 25.d8=Q Rxd8 26.Bxd8 gives White good counterplay, thanks to the threat of Re7+.

Both lines lead to unclear play, but the game seems to remain within the drawing margin.

Black could instead try 24...Kf8, but then the engines give 25.Be7+ Kf7 26.Ba3!?, eg 26...Rxa2 27.Re7+ Kf6 28.g5+! Kxg5 29.Re8 Rxa3+ 30.Ke2 Rxe8+ 31.dxe8=Q, after which they reckon the white queen can at least hold its own against the black rook and seven pawns, although again the position is, to say the least, unclear.

LESSON: we all know undue materialism is the enemy of making correct assessments, but it is not always properly remembered in the heat of battle. I, with white, rejected the line leading to the first diagram as I dismissed White's chances without concretely trying to analyse the position.