Home > Jacob Aagaard's training tips > The Dauton/Steckner Position

The Dauton/Steckner Position

Those who obsess about these things will know the famous Steckner idea in this theoretical endgame position:

[fen size=”small”]8/R4p2/P4kp1/7p/7P/4K1P1/r4P2/8 w – – 0 1[/fen]

Here endgame theory was revolutionised by Steckner’s discovery that after 1.Kd4 Rxf2 2.Rc7 Ra2 3.a7 Kf5 White plays the brilliant 4.Kc4!!

[fen size=”small”]8/P1R2p2/6p1/5k1p/2K4P/6P1/r7/8 b – – 0 4[/fen]

The idea is that 4…Kg4 5.Kb3! leads to a win for White.

In Dvoretsky’s Endgame Manual version 4 from 2011 (and later on Forward Chess) 1…Rxf2 is the only move mentioned and it is believed that White is winning. However, a very complicated draw was found by Poghosyan starting with 1…g5 2.Kd5 g4. See here for the details (and there is a lot of them).

Looking at this position recently I think I found a simple way to draw:

[fen size=”small”]8/R4p2/P4k2/3K2pp/7P/6P1/r4P2/8 b – – 0 2[/fen]

2…Kg6!? with the idea …f6, …Kf5 and counterplay. I cannot see how White can improve his position. Are there anyone who has an opinion on such things? Maybe there is a chance to analyse it a bit deeper?

Categories: Jacob Aagaard's training tips Tags:
  1. John Cox
    March 24th, 2014 at 11:39 | #1

    You know this ending occurred in the 4NCL game Adair-Smerdon at the weekend? A very important game for deciding fourth place in one pool and hence qualifying for the championship pool (which we didn’t; that’s why I noticed).

  2. Jacob Aagaard
    March 24th, 2014 at 12:11 | #2

    Cool. I will definitely look it up.

  3. Nikos Ntirlis
    March 24th, 2014 at 14:03 | #3

    From a very first and shallow look at the position it seems indeed that this is a draw, but there are always unexpected and well hidden resources in this kind of things that only deep analysis can show the truth.

  4. March 24th, 2014 at 20:07 | #4

    Do you have some analysis to back this up? I assume you were looking at it for the endgame book.

  5. Jacob Aagaard
    March 24th, 2014 at 21:14 | #5

    @John Hartmann
    No, I was looking at it independently of the endgame book. I do not really have any analysis. I have failed to find a plan for White! I had some line with 3.f3, but it really looked awful.

    Any idea for White would be welcome.

  6. March 24th, 2014 at 21:15 | #6

    I alerted the Chesspub crew to this blog post’s existence. Let’s see what they dredge up!

  7. SugarLips
    March 25th, 2014 at 11:43 | #7

    I let Stockfish (with TB) evaluate the position after 1.Kd4 -> 0.0 with your plan of Kg6 and f6 as the main line- so i guess it is a draw after all.

  8. March 26th, 2014 at 18:08 | #8

    FYI: Poghosyan confirms Aagaard’s claim. Analysis (including pgn) is available at

    http://www.chesspub.com/cgi-bin/yabb2/YaBB.pl?num=1395667114/0

  9. April 26th, 2014 at 21:37 | #9
  10. Jacob Aagaard
    April 27th, 2014 at 13:33 | #10

    It was for the training group, but I tried to do my work properly for once; trying to understand what I was to teach! With four of the six players in the training group being over 2600 it turned out to be a really good idea!

  11. Pinpon
    December 21st, 2015 at 10:35 | #11

    Anything new since 2014 ?

  12. Jacob Aagaard
    December 21st, 2015 at 12:27 | #12

    @Pinpon
    Not as far as I know

  13. Pinpon
    December 21st, 2015 at 15:29 | #13

    I don’t know the genesis of all this work but i won’t be surprised if it were the 2002 Gurevich-Glek game with Mischa playing Kb3

  14. February 19th, 2018 at 13:56 | #14

    I have been steadily working through Jacob’s excellent book “Thinking Inside The Box” but was astonished, having just reached page 353, to see him criticise the late great Mark Dvoretsky for allegedly not analysing the Steckner position properly in the 4th edition of his Endgame Manual (2014).
    I have the English edition of that book, published by Russell Enterprises. On the contrary, after showing the old line starting 1 Kd4 Rxf2? on pages 203-204, Dvoretsky then did indeed examine Pogosyan’s improvement 1…g5!! (“a rare omission” according to Jacob’s book page 353) and the analysis continues to page 210.
    I can only imagine that when Jacob wrote what he did in this blog in 2014, he was actually looking either at the 3rd or another language version of the 4th edition, and then he didn’t go back to check this when writing the book in 2017.
    It’s a great shame and if there is a second edition of Thinking Inside The Box, Jacob will definitely need to rewrite this part.

  15. Jacob Aagaard
    February 19th, 2018 at 15:49 | #15

    @Tim Harding
    Hi Tim,

    Yes, this is a case of me actually telling Mark about this 1…g5! move, him including it in the subsequent edition, if my mind serves me correctly. Or maybe I just messed up. Parts of Box has been written over years and of course I entirely blame the proof reader for not checking if I had the reference correctly. A rewrite for any future edition, if one will exist, is definitely in order :-).

    Thanks, Jacob

  16. Johnnyboy
    February 19th, 2018 at 19:34 | #16

    To be fair to Jacob his column was written in March 14 but the 4th edition wasn’t published till Dec 14. He even alludes to it being the 2011 edition. Jacob may be godlike but he has yet to master time travel.

  17. hasan
    February 19th, 2018 at 20:37 | #17

    i wonder is nikolaos ntirlis woking on a new book

  18. Reyk
    February 20th, 2018 at 10:26 | #18

    Johnnyboy :
    To be fair to Jacob his column was written in March 14 but the 4th edition wasn’t published till Dec 14. He even alludes to it being the 2011 edition. Jacob may be godlike but he has yet to master time travel.

    Tim was referring to Jacob’s book “Thinking inside the box”, that was published later, but didn’t recheck the verdict of the 2014 column. The latter was obviously correct at that time.

  19. johnnyboyross
    February 20th, 2018 at 12:04 | #19

    Reyk

    Yes that’s true but his training session that he refers to in TOTB obviously had the earlier edition. Jacob was unaware the new edition had changed but it seems that the older edition being incorrect made it more challenging. As far as I know Jacob’s Kg6 idea still holds up as well.

  20. Jacob Aagaard
    February 20th, 2018 at 18:21 | #20

    @johnnyboyross
    I think someone just checked if it was the latest version of DEM and changed it to 4th, rather than 3rd. Most likely me :-(.

  21. Jacob Aagaard
    February 20th, 2018 at 18:21 | #21

    @hasan
    He is a big part of the Playing 1.e4 team.

  1. January 12th, 2017 at 19:39 | #1

 Limit your comments to