[Event "My System & Chess Praxis- part 2: (3) The third special case. The drawing mechanism of rook + knight (perpetual ch"] [Site "https://lichess.org/study/MB3NaXOO/xNl7ayYY"] [Result "*"] [Variant "Standard"] [ECO "?"] [Opening "?"] [Annotator "https://lichess.org/@/vittalsk89"] [FEN "5k2/1R6/5N2/8/8/8/2ppp2K/8 w - - 0 1"] [SetUp "1"] [UTCDate "2020.01.30"] [UTCTime "13:18:47"] [Source "https://lichess.org/study/MB3NaXOO/xNl7ayYY"] [Orientation "white"] { to bring about a perpetual check. Because 1.♘h7+ ♔e8 2.♘f6+ fails to 2…♔d8, the draw comes about with the solution } 1. Rd7! (1. Nh7+ { My try failed } 1... Kg8 2. Nf6+ Kf8 (2... Kh8?? 3. Rh7#) 3. Nh7+ Ke8 4. Nf6+ Kd8 5. Rd7+ Kc8) 1... e1=Q { the drawing mechanism works perfectly } 2. Nh7+ Ke8 3. Nf6+ Kf8 4. Nh7+ Kg8 5. Nf6+ { How the blockader behaves, when it rails and threatens, and how it responds when it is on holiday. The concept of elasticity. The various forms of this. The strong and the weak blockader. How the blockader meets the many demands made on it, partly on its own initiative, and why I see in this a proof of its vitality. The ‘seemingly uneconomic use of a piece that has supposedly been degraded to a watchdog’ is shown to be an untenable(incable of being defended) conception. The primary function of a blockader is obviously to block the pawn in question and to do so competently. In this sense, the blockader itself tends to be immobile. And yet (what vitality!) it not infrequently displays a considerable activity. Namely: } 5... Kf8 { Draw Note that the key move 1.♖d7 brings the rook and knight into strategic contact. } *