Steffen, the introduction adds nothing apart from material, captures and highly complex sidelines. (You underestimate their complexity, I think. The evaluations in these rook endgames are far from obvious and one needs to think deeply to understand why the computer says 0.00 etc.)
Also the try 7. Kg4? is highly interesting for a Grandmaster who wants to study the different defense mechanisms, but not thematic at all and extremely complex, too.
Summing up: move 1-7 are great analytical work, but have no artistic content whatsoever.
Aagaard should have started the study with 8. Ra8. Symmetric material and more than enough content. And in this form, it would or should have won the World Cup.
Pity for the clumsy introduction. The study itself is very strong: logical, surprising and understandable.
10. Kh1 is highly memorable. I see no clumsy introduction.
Steffen, the introduction adds nothing apart from material, captures and highly complex sidelines. (You underestimate their complexity, I think. The evaluations in these rook endgames are far from obvious and one needs to think deeply to understand why the computer says 0.00 etc.)
Also the try 7. Kg4? is highly interesting for a Grandmaster who wants to study the different defense mechanisms, but not thematic at all and extremely complex, too.
Summing up: move 1-7 are great analytical work, but have no artistic content whatsoever.
Aagaard should have started the study with 8. Ra8. Symmetric material and more than enough content. And in this form, it would or should have won the World Cup.