A Marathon Beyond the Day in Modern Tournament Chess

In a striking article featured by ChessBase, Valery Golubenko revisits a game he played two months ago, one that may rank among the longest ever seen in modern competitive chess when measured by move count. Played against Kirill Gorkov at the Estonian Team Championship, Tallinn 2026, the encounter stands out not only as a test of endurance but also as a deep laboratory of queen endgame technique. The critical turning point came on move 88, when a queen versus b-pawn ending arose. Black had theoretical winning chances, yet in practical terms the position remained defensible for a remarkably long time, and the struggle stretched all the way to move 228.

Golubenko’s analytical method makes the story even more compelling. From move 88 to move 228, he examines nearly every position through the lens of the number of moves Black needs to force mate. This allows readers to see not only whether a position is theoretically won or drawn, but also how precise each move really is. If the mating distance does not drop as expected after Black’s move, Black has played inaccurately; if the number drops after White’s move, then White has erred in defence. By contrast, if White keeps the number unchanged, that means the most stubborn and resilient defence has been found. Particularly striking is the fact that, from moves 88 to 149, with only a few critical exceptions, the position remained theoretically drawn. That contrast between human memory and tablebase certainty is one of the most fascinating aspects of the game.

At its core, the article is not just about an extraordinarily long game. It also touches on a broader practical issue in contemporary chess: how to balance opening preparation with genuine endgame skill. Golubenko points to the value of a “lazy” but intelligent repertoire, especially in rapid and blitz chess—systems requiring less memorised theory, but rich in ideas and built around structures that are easy to remember. Yet this game demonstrates that surviving the opening is only part of the challenge. Very often, victory is decided when the board has been simplified and technical accuracy is tested in its purest form. Endings such as queen versus knight-pawn or rook-pawn are rare in practice, but when they do occur, they demand a precise understanding of both the rules and the exceptions.

The most dramatic feature of the article is the paradox of the final position: Black is in fact winning, yet cannot convert because of the seventy-five-move rule. Golubenko explains that he vaguely remembered a key principle from queen-versus-knight-pawn endgames—that the queen should be placed on the central diagonal—but could not fully recall during the game on which side and in what exact arrangement this should be done. That detail captures one of modern chess’s most compelling truths: a theoretically won position and a position that can actually be won over the board are not always the same thing. For that reason, this game deserves to be remembered not only as a very long struggle, but also as a rich case study in tablebase chess, human intuition, defensive resilience and the limits imposed by the rules.