Harder King and Pawn Endgame Puzzles.by, Mrs Jessica E Prescott (aka BoundingOwl) Buon giorno! Do you remember the 4 critical positions from last wee. Mar 13, 2014 Everything needs a strong foundation - endgame knowledge in particular. Today GM Benzoo begins a long series by first showing the building blocks of all endgames - king and one pawn. We get to draw a lot of squares. Hey, is this chess, art or math class? Either way, you've got to master the simple stuff so his future videos make sense! Knight and pawn endgames feature clever manoeuvring by the knights to capture opponent pawns. While a knight is poor at chasing a passed pawn, it is the ideal piece to block a passed pawn. Knights cannot lose a tempo, so knight and pawn endgames have much in common with king.
(Redirected from King and pawn endgame)
In chess and chess-like games, the endgame (or end game or ending) is the stage of the game when few pieces are left on the board.
The line between middlegame and endgame is often not clear, and may occur gradually or with the quick exchange of a few pairs of pieces. The endgame, however, tends to have different characteristics from the middlegame, and the players have correspondingly different strategic concerns. In particular, pawns become more important as endgames often revolve around attempting to promote a pawn by advancing it to the eighth rank. The king, which has to be protected in the middlegame owing to the threat of checkmate, becomes a strong piece in the endgame. It can be brought to the center of the board and act as a useful attacking piece.
Whereas chess opening theory changes frequently, giving way to middlegame positions that fall in and out of popularity, endgame theory always remains constant. Many people have composed endgame studies, endgame positions which are solved by finding a win for White when there is no obvious way to win, or a draw when it seems White must lose.
Usually in the endgame, the stronger side (the one with more material using the standard piece point count system) should try to exchange pieces (knights, bishops, rooks, and queens), while avoiding the exchange of pawns. This generally makes it easier to convert a material advantage into a won game. The defending side should strive for the opposite.
Chess players classify endgames according to the type of pieces that remain.
- 4Common types of endgames
- 4.2King and pawn endings
- 4.3Knight and pawn endings
- 4.4Bishop and pawn endings
- 4.5Bishop versus knight endings (with pawns)
- 4.6Rook and pawn endings
- 4.7Queen and pawn endings
Categories[edit]
Endgames can be divided into three categories:
- Theoretical endgames – positions where the correct line of play is generally known and well-analyzed, so the solution is a matter of technique
- Practical endgames – positions arising in actual games, where skillful play should transform it into a theoretical endgame position
- Artistic endgames (studies) – contrived positions which contain a theoretical endgame hidden by problematic complications (Portisch & Sárközy 1981:vii).
This article generally does not consider studies.
The start of the endgame[edit]
An endgame is when there are only a few pieces left. There is no strict criterion for when an endgame begins, and different experts have different opinions (Fine 1952:430). Alexander Alekhine said 'We cannot define when the middle game ends and the end-game starts' (Whitaker & Hartleb 1960). With the usual system for chess piece relative value, Speelman considers that endgames are positions in which each player has thirteen or fewer points in material (not counting the king). Alternatively, an endgame is a position in which the king can be used actively, but there are some famous exceptions to that (Speelman 1981:7–8). Minev characterizes endgames as positions having four or fewer pieces other than kings and pawns (Minev 2004:5). Some authors consider endgames to be positions without queens (e.g. Fine, 1952), while others consider a position to be an endgame when each player has less than a queen plus rook in material. Flear considers an endgame to be where each player has at most one piece (other than kings and pawns) and positions with more material where each player has at most two pieces to be 'Not Quite an Endgame' (NQE), pronounced 'nuckie' (Flear 2007:7–8).
Alburt and Krogius give three characteristics of an endgame: (Alburt & Krogius 2000:12)
- Endgames favor an aggressive king.
- Passed pawns increase greatly in importance.
- Zugzwang is often a factor in endgames and rarely in other stages of the game.
Some problem composers consider that the endgame starts when the player who is about to move can force a win or a draw against any variation of moves (Portisch & Sárközy 1981:vii).
Mednis and Crouch address the question of what constitutes an endgame negatively. The game is still in the middlegame if middlegame elements still describe the position. The game is not in the endgame if these apply:
- better development;
- open files for attacking;
- vulnerable king position;
- misplaced pieces (Mednis & Crouch 1992:1).
General considerations[edit]
In endgames with pieces and pawns, an extra pawn is a winning advantage in 50 to 60 percent of cases. It becomes more decisive if the stronger side also has a positional advantage (Euwe & Meiden 1978:xvi). In general, the player with a material advantage tries to exchange pieces and reach the endgame. In the endgame, the player with a material advantage should usually try to exchange pieces but avoid the exchange of pawns (Dvoretsky & Yusupov 2008:134). There are some exceptions to this: (1) endings in which both sides have two rooks plus pawns – the player with more pawns has better winning chances if a pair of rooks are not exchanged, and (2) bishops on opposite color with other pieces – the stronger side should avoid exchanging the other pieces. Also when all of the pawns are on the same side of the board, often the stronger side must exchange pawns to try to create a passed pawn.
In the endgame, it is usually better for the player with more pawns to avoid many pawn exchanges, because winning chances usually decrease as the number of pawns decreases. Also, endings with pawns on both sides of the board are much easier to win. A king and pawn endgame with an outside passed pawn should be a far easier win than a middlegame a rook ahead.
With the recent growth of computer chess, a development has been the creation of endgame databases which are tables of stored positions calculated by retrograde analysis (such a database is called an endgame tablebase). A program which incorporates knowledge from such a database is able to play perfect chess on reaching any position in the database.
Max Euwe and Walter Meiden give these five generalizations:
- In king and pawn endings, an extra pawn is decisive in more than 90 percent of the cases.
- In endgames with pieces and pawns, an extra pawn is a winning advantage in 50 to 60 percent of the cases. It becomes more decisive if the stronger side has a positional advantage.
- The king plays an important role in the endgame.
- Initiative is more important in the endgame than in other phases of the game. In rook endgames the initiative is usually worth at least a pawn.
- Two connectedpassed pawns are very strong. If they reach their sixth rank they are generally as powerful as a rook (Euwe & Meiden 1978:xvi–xvii).
Common types of endgames[edit]
Basic checkmates[edit]
Many references [1][2][3][4][5][6][7][8][9][10][11]have sections on basic, elementary, or fundamental checkmating endgames. In general, these are pawnless endgames with one or more pieces checkmating a lone king. For example:
Some authors choose to add endgames from the following list (or others) to arrive at their list of 'Basic checkmates':
- king and three knights against a king
In conjunction with its king, a queen or a rook can easily checkmate a lone king, but a single minor piece (a bishop or knight) cannot. See Wikibooks – Chess/The Endgame for a demonstration of these two checkmates. Two bishops (plus their king) can easily checkmate a lone king, provided that the bishops move on opposite color squares. (Two or more bishops on the same color cannot checkmate.) A bishop and knight (plus their king) can also checkmate a lone king, although the checkmate procedure is long (up to 33 moves with correct play) and is difficult for a player who does not know the correct technique.
Two knights cannot force checkmate against a lone king (see Two knights endgame), but if the weaker side also has material (besides the king), checkmate is sometimes possible. (Troitzky 2006:197–257) The winning chances with two knights are insignificant except against a few pawns. (Haworth, Guy McC (2009). 'Western Chess:Endgame Data'. CentAUR.) The procedure can be long and difficult. In competition, the fifty-move rule will often result in the game being drawn first. (While there is a board position that allows two knights to checkmate a lone king, such requires a careless move by the weaker side to execute.)
King and pawn endings[edit]
King and pawn endgames involve only kings and pawns on one or both sides. International MasterCecil Purdy said 'Pawn endings are to chess as putting is to golf.' Any endgame with pieces and pawns has the possibility of simplifying into a pawn ending (Nunn 2010:43).
In king and pawn endings, an extra pawn is decisive in more than 90 percent of the cases (Euwe & Meiden 1978:xvi). Getting a passed pawn is crucial (a passed pawn is one which does not have an opposing pawn on its file or on adjacent files on its way to promotion). Nimzovich once said that a passed pawn has a 'lust to expand'. An outside passed pawn is particularly deadly. The point of this is a decoy – while the defending king is preventing it from queening, the attacking king wins pawns on the other side.
Opposition is an important technique that is used to gain an advantage. When two kings are in opposition, they are on the same file (or rank) with an empty square separating them. The player having the move loses the opposition. He must move his king and allow the opponent's king to advance. Note however that the opposition is a means to an end, which is penetration into the enemy position. If the attacker can penetrate without the opposition, he should do so. The tactics of triangulation and zugzwang as well as the theory of corresponding squares are often decisive.
Unlike most positions, king and pawn endgames can usually be analyzed to a definite conclusion, given enough skill and time. An error in a king and pawn endgame almost always turns a win into a draw or a draw into a loss – there is little chance for recovery. Accuracy is most important in these endgames. There are three fundamental ideas in these endgames: opposition, triangulation, and the Réti manoeuvre (Nunn 2007:113ff).
King and pawn versus king[edit]
White to move wins with 1.Kb6. Black to move draws with 1..Kc5. |
White to play draws. Black to play loses after 1..Ke8 2.e7 Kf7 3.Kd7 and queens. |
This is one of the most basic endgames. A draw results if the defending king can reach the square in front of the pawn or the square in front of that (or capture the pawn) (Müller & Lamprecht 2007:16,21). If the attacking king can prevent that, the king will assist the pawn in being promoted to a queen or rook, and checkmate can be achieved. A rook pawn is an exception because the king may not be able to get out of the way of its pawn. The other pawns are also exceptions (see diagram far right).
Knight and pawn endings[edit]
Knight and pawn endgames feature clever manoeuvring by the knights to capture opponent pawns. While a knight is poor at chasing a passed pawn, it is the ideal piece to block a passed pawn. Knights cannot lose a tempo, so knight and pawn endgames have much in common with king and pawn endgames. As a result, Mikhail Botvinnik stated that “a knight ending is really a pawn ending.” (Beliavsky & Mikhalchishin 2003:139)
Knight and pawn versus knight[edit]
a | b | c | d | e | f | g | h |
8 | 8 | ||||||
7 | 7 | ||||||
6 | 6 | ||||||
5 | 5 | ||||||
4 | 4 | ||||||
3 | 3 | ||||||
2 | 2 | ||||||
1 | 1 | ||||||
a | b | c | d | e | f | g | h |
White to play wins; Black to play draws.
This is generally a draw since the knight can be sacrificed for the pawn, however, the king and knight must be covering squares in the pawn's path. If the pawn reaches the seventh rank and is supported by its king and knight, it usually promotes and wins. In this position, White to move wins: 1. b6 Nb7 2. Ne6! Na5 3. Kc8! N-any 4. Nc7#. If Black plays the knight to any other square on move 2, White plays Kc8 anyway, threatening b7+ and promotion if the knight leaves the defense of the b7 square. Black to move draws starting with 1.. Nc4 because White cannot gain a tempo (Fine & Benko 2003:112–14).
Bishop and pawn endings[edit]
a | b | c | d | e | f | g | h |
8 | 8 | ||||||
7 | 7 | ||||||
6 | 6 | ||||||
5 | 5 | ||||||
4 | 4 | ||||||
3 | 3 | ||||||
2 | 2 | ||||||
1 | 1 | ||||||
a | b | c | d | e | f | g | h |
White to move. White has a good bishop, Black has a bad one.
Bishop and pawn endgames come in two distinctly different variants. If the opposing bishops go on the same color of square, the mobility of the bishops is a crucial factor. A bad bishop is one that is hemmed in by pawns of its own color, and has the burden of defending them.
The adjacent diagram, from Molnar–Nagy, Hungary 1966, illustrates the concepts of good bishop versus bad bishop, opposition, zugzwang, and outside passed pawn. White wins with 1. e6! (vacating e5 for his king) 1.. Bxe6 2. Bc2! (threatening Bxg6) 2.. Bf7 3. Be4! (threatening Bxc6) 3.. Be8 4. Ke5! (seizing the opposition [i.e. the kings are two orthogonal squares apart, with the other player on move] and placing Black in zugzwang—he must either move his king, allowing White's king to penetrate, or his bishop, allowing a decisive incursion by White's bishop) 4.. Bd7 5. Bxg6!
Bishop and pawn versus bishop on the same color[edit]
Draw |
Centurini showed how White to move wins. White also wins if Black is to move (Müller & Lamprecht 2001:13). |
Two rules given by Luigi Centurini in the 19th century apply:
- The game is a draw if the defending king can reach any square in front of the pawn that is opposite in color to the squares the bishops travel on.
- If the defending king is behind the pawn and the attacking king is near the pawn, the defender can draw only if his king is attacking the pawn, he has the opposition, and his bishop can move on two diagonals that each have at least two squares available (other than the square it is on) (Fine & Benko 2003:152). This is the case for central pawns and the bishop pawn whose promotion square is not the same color as the bishop (Fine & Benko 2003:154).
The position in the second diagram shows a winning position for White, although it requires accurate play. A knight pawn always wins if the defending bishop only has one long diagonal available (Fine & Benko 2003:155–56).
a | b | c | d | e | f | g | h |
8 | 8 | ||||||
7 | 7 | ||||||
6 | 6 | ||||||
5 | 5 | ||||||
4 | 4 | ||||||
3 | 3 | ||||||
2 | 2 | ||||||
1 | 1 | ||||||
a | b | c | d | e | f | g | h |
Position before 67.Bd5
This position was reached in a game from the 1965 Candidates Tournament between Lajos Portisch and former World ChampionMikhail Tal.[12] White must defend accurately and utilize reciprocal zugzwang. Often he has only one or two moves that avoid a losing position. Black was unable to make any progress and the game was drawn on move 83 (Nunn 1995:169).
Bishops on opposite colors[edit]
a | b | c | d | e | f | g | h |
8 | 8 | ||||||
7 | 7 | ||||||
6 | 6 | ||||||
5 | 5 | ||||||
4 | 4 | ||||||
3 | 3 | ||||||
2 | 2 | ||||||
1 | 1 | ||||||
a | b | c | d | e | f | g | h |
White to play, a draw. White wins if the pawn is on f5 instead of e5 (Fine & Benko 2003:184–92).
Endings with bishops of opposite color, meaning that one bishop works on the light squares, the other one working on dark squares, are notorious for their drawish character. Many players in a poor position have saved themselves from a loss by trading down to such an endgame. They are often drawn even when one side has a two-pawn advantage, since the weaker side can create a blockade on the squares which his bishop operates on. The weaker side should often try to make his bishop bad by placing his pawns on the same color of his bishop in order to defend his remaining pawns, thereby creating an impregnable fortress.
Bishop versus knight endings (with pawns)[edit]
Current theory is that bishops are better than knights about 60 percent of the time in the endgame. The more symmetrical the pawn structure, the better it is for the knight. The knight is best suited at an outpost in the center, particularly where it cannot easily be driven away, whereas the bishop is strongest when it can attack targets on both sides of the board or a series of squares of the same color (Beliavsky & Mikhalchishin 1995:122).
Fine and Benko (Fine & Benko 2003:205) give four conclusions:
- In general the bishop is better than the knight.
- When there is a material advantage, the difference between the bishop and knight is not very important. However, the bishop usually wins more easily than the knight.
- If the material is even, the position should be drawn. However, the bishop can exploit positional advantages more efficiently.
- When most of the pawns are on the same color as the bishop (i.e. a bad bishop), the knight is better.
Bishop and pawn versus knight[edit]
a | b | c | d | e | f | g | h |
8 | 8 | ||||||
7 | 7 | ||||||
6 | 6 | ||||||
5 | 5 | ||||||
4 | 4 | ||||||
3 | 3 | ||||||
2 | 2 | ||||||
1 | 1 | ||||||
a | b | c | d | e | f | g | h |
White to move wins; Black to move draws.
This is a draw if the defending king is in front of the pawn or sufficiently close. The defending king can occupy a square in front of the pawn of the opposite color as the bishop and cannot be driven away. Otherwise the attacker can win (Fine & Benko 2003:206).
Knight and pawn versus bishop[edit]
Muller & Lamprecht, diagram 5.23
(from Fine, 1941)
(from Fine, 1941)
a | b | c | d | e | f | g | h |
8 | 8 | ||||||
7 | 7 | ||||||
6 | 6 | ||||||
5 | 5 | ||||||
4 | 4 | ||||||
3 | 3 | ||||||
2 | 2 | ||||||
1 | 1 | ||||||
a | b | c | d | e | f | g | h |
White to move wins; Black to move draws.
This is a draw if the defending king is in front of the pawn or sufficiently near. The bishop is kept on a diagonal that the pawn must cross and the knight cannot both block the bishop and drive the defending king away. Otherwise the attacker can win (Fine & Benko 2003:209).
Rook and pawn endings[edit]
Rook and pawn endgames are often drawn in spite of one side having an extra pawn. (In some cases, two extra pawns are not enough to win.) An extra pawn is harder to convert to a win in a rook and pawn endgame than any other type of endgame except a bishop endgame with bishops on opposite colors. Rook endings are probably the deepest and most well studied endgames. They are a common type of endgame in practice, occurring in about 10 percent of all games (including ones that do not reach an endgame) (Emms 2008:7). These endgames occur frequently because rooks are often the last pieces to be exchanged. The ability to play these endgames well is a major factor distinguishing masters from amateurs (Nunn 2007:125). When both sides have two rooks and pawns, the stronger side usually has more winning chances than if each had only one rook (Emms 2008:141).
Three rules of thumb regarding rooks are worth noting:
- Rooks should almost always be placed behind passed pawns, whether one's own or the opponent's (the Tarrasch rule). A notable exception is in the ending of a rook and pawn versus a rook, if the pawn is not too far advanced. In that case, the best place for the opposing rook is in front of the pawn.
- Rooks are very poor defenders relative to their attacking strength, so it is often good to sacrifice a pawn for activity.
- A rook on the seventh rank can wreak mayhem among the opponent's pawns. The power of a rook on the seventh rank is not confined to the endgame. The classic example is Capablanca versus Tartakower, New York 1924 (see annotated game without diagrams or Java board)
An important winning position in the rook and pawn versus rook endgame is the so-called Lucena position. If the side with the pawn can reach the Lucena position, he wins. However, there are several important drawing techniques such as the Philidor position, the back rank defense (rook on the first rank, for rook pawns and knight pawns only), the frontal defense, and the short side defense. A general rule is that if the weaker side's king can get to the queening square of the pawn, the game is a draw and otherwise it is a win, but there are many exceptions.
Rook and pawn versus rook[edit]
a | b | c | d | e | f | g | h |
8 | 8 | ||||||
7 | 7 | ||||||
6 | 6 | ||||||
5 | 5 | ||||||
4 | 4 | ||||||
3 | 3 | ||||||
2 | 2 | ||||||
1 | 1 | ||||||
a | b | c | d | e | f | g | h |
White to play wins because of the Lucena position. Black to play draws with 1..Ra8+, either because of perpetual check or winning the pawn.
Generally (but not always), if the defending king can reach the queening square of the pawn the game is a draw (see Philidor position), otherwise the attacker usually wins (if it is not a rook pawn) (see Lucena position) (Fine & Benko 2003:294). The winning procedure can be very difficult and some positions require up to sixty moves to win (Speelman, Tisdall & Wade 1993:7). If the attacking rook is two files from the pawn and the defending king is cut off on the other side, the attacker normally wins (with a few exceptions) (Fine & Benko 2003:294). The rook and pawn versus rook is the most common of the 'piece and pawn versus piece' endgames (Nunn 2007:148).
The most difficult case of a rook and pawn versus a rook occurs when the attacking rook is one file over from the pawn and the defending king is cut off on the other side. Siegbert Tarrasch gave the following rules for this case:
For a player defending against a pawn on the fifth or even sixth ranks to obtain a draw, even after his king has been forced off the queening square, the following conditions must obtain: The file on which the pawn stands divides the board into two unequal parts. The defending rook must stand in the longer part and give checks from the flank at the greatest possible distance from the attacking king. Nothing less than a distance of three files makes it possible for the rook to keep on giving check. Otherwise it would ultimately be attacked by the king. The defending king must stand on the smaller part of the board.
(See the short side defense at Rook and pawn versus rook endgame.)
Quotation[edit]
- 'All rook and pawn endings are drawn.'
The context of this quote shows it is a comment on the fact that a small advantage in a rook and pawn endgame is less likely to be converted into a win. Mark Dvoretsky said that the statement is 'semi-joking, semi-serious' (Dvoretsky & Yusupov 2008:159). This quotation has variously been attributed to Savielly Tartakower and to Siegbert Tarrasch. Writers Victor Korchnoi (Korchnoi 2002:29), John Emms (Emms 2008:41), and James Howell (Howell 1997:36) attribute the quote to Tartakower, whereas Dvoretsky (Dvoretsky 2006:158), Andy Soltis (Soltis 2003:52), Karsten Müller,[13] and Kaufeld & Kern (Kaufeld & Kern 2011:167) attribute it to Tarrasch. John Watson attributed to Tarrasch 'by legend' and says that statistics do not support the statement (Watson 1998:81–82). Benko wonders if it was due to Vasily Smyslov (Benko 2007:186). Attributing the quote to Tarrasch may be a result of confusion between this quote and the Tarrasch rule concerning rooks. The source of the quote is currently unresolved.[14] Benko noted that although the saying is usually said with tongue in cheek, it is truer in practice than one might think (Benko 2007:189).
Queen and pawn endings[edit]
In queen and pawn endings, passed pawns have paramount importance, because the queen can escort it to the queening square alone. The advancement of the passed pawn outweighs the number of pawns. The defender must resort to perpetual check. These endings are frequently extremely long affairs. For an example of a queen and pawn endgame see Kasparov versus the World – Kasparov won although he had fewer pawns because his was more advanced. For the ending with a queen versus a pawn, see Queen versus pawn endgame.
Queen and pawn versus queen[edit]
a | b | c | d | e | f | g | h |
8 | 8 | ||||||
7 | 7 | ||||||
6 | 6 | ||||||
5 | 5 | ||||||
4 | 4 | ||||||
3 | 3 | ||||||
2 | 2 | ||||||
1 | 1 | ||||||
a | b | c | d | e | f | g | h |
White to play wins; Black to play draws.
The queen and pawn versus queen endgame is the second most common of the 'piece and pawn versus piece' endgames, after rook and pawn versus rook. It is very complicated and difficult to play. Human analysts were not able to make a complete analysis before the advent of endgame tablebases (Nunn 2007:148). This combination is a win less frequently than the equivalent ending with rooks.
Rook versus a minor piece[edit]
a | b | c | d | e | f | g | h |
8 | 8 | ||||||
7 | 7 | ||||||
6 | 6 | ||||||
5 | 5 | ||||||
4 | 4 | ||||||
3 | 3 | ||||||
2 | 2 | ||||||
1 | 1 | ||||||
a | b | c | d | e | f | g | h |
White to play draws; Black to play wins (Müller & Lamprecht 2001:273).
The difference in material between a rook and a minor piece is about two points or a little less, the equivalent of two pawns.
- A rook and a pawn versus a minor piece: normally a win for the rook but there are some draws. In particular, if the pawn is on its sixth rank and is a bishop pawn or rook pawn, and the bishop does not control the pawn's promotion square, the position is a draw (de la Villa 2008:221). See Wrong bishop.
- A rook versus a minor piece: normally a draw but in some cases the rook wins, see pawnless chess endgame.
- A rook versus a minor piece and one pawn: usually a draw but the rook may win.
- A rook versus a minor piece and two pawns: usually a draw but the minor piece may win.
- A rook versus a minor piece and three pawns: a win for the minor piece.
If both sides have pawns, the result essentially depends on how many pawns the minor piece has for the exchange:
- No pawns for the exchange (i.e. same number of pawns on each side): the rook usually wins.
- One pawn for the exchange (i.e. minor piece has one more pawn): the rook usually wins, but it is technically difficult. If all of the pawns are on one side of the board it is usually a draw.
- Two pawns for the exchange: this is normally a draw. With a bishop either side may have winning chances. With a knight, the rook may have winning chances and the defense is difficult for the knight if the pawns are scattered.
- Three pawns for the exchange: this is normally a win for the minor piece (Fine & Benko 2003:459ff).
Two minor pieces versus a rook[edit]
a | b | c | d | e | f | g | h |
8 | 8 | ||||||
7 | 7 | ||||||
6 | 6 | ||||||
5 | 5 | ||||||
4 | 4 | ||||||
3 | 3 | ||||||
2 | 2 | ||||||
1 | 1 | ||||||
a | b | c | d | e | f | g | h |
Black to play draws (Muller & Lamprecht 2001:23).
In an endgame, two minor pieces are approximately equivalent to a rook plus one pawn. The pawn structure is important. The two pieces have the advantage if the opponent's pawns are weak. Initiative is more important in this endgame than any other. The general outcome can be broken down by the number of pawns.
- The two pieces have one or more extra pawns: always a win for the pieces.
- Same number of pawns: usually a draw but the two pieces win more often than the rook.
- The rook has one extra pawn: usually a draw but either side may have winning chances, depending on positional factors.
- The rook has two additional pawns: normally a win for the rook (Fine & Benko 2003:449–58).
Queen versus two rooks[edit]
a | b | c | d | e | f | g | h |
8 | 8 | ||||||
7 | 7 | ||||||
6 | 6 | ||||||
5 | 5 | ||||||
4 | 4 | ||||||
3 | 3 | ||||||
2 | 2 | ||||||
1 | 1 | ||||||
a | b | c | d | e | f | g | h |
In this position, Kramnik (Black) played g5 and h6, maneuvered a rook to f4, and eventually captured White's backward f-pawn. He won after a blunder forced the trade of queen and rooks, and Leko resigned.
Without pawns this is normally drawn, but either side wins in some positions. A queen and pawn are normally equivalent to two rooks, which is usually a draw if both sides have an equal number of additional pawns. Two rooks plus one pawn versus a queen is also generally drawn. Otherwise, if either side has an additional pawn, that side normally wins (Fine & Benko 2003:566–67). While playing for a draw, the defender (the side with fewer pawns) should try to avoid situations in which the queen and rooks are forcibly traded into a losing king and pawn endgame.
Queen versus rook and minor piece[edit]
a | b | c | d | e | f | g | h |
8 | 8 | ||||||
7 | 7 | ||||||
6 | 6 | ||||||
5 | 5 | ||||||
4 | 4 | ||||||
3 | 3 | ||||||
2 | 2 | ||||||
1 | 1 | ||||||
a | b | c | d | e | f | g | h |
Black to move won.
If there are no pawns, the position is usually drawn, but either side wins in some positions. A queen is equivalent to a rook and bishop plus one pawn. If the queen has an additional pawn it wins, but with difficulty. A rook and bishop plus two pawns win over a queen (Fine & Benko 2003:563).
Queen versus rook[edit]
|
|
- Without pawns, the queen normally wins but it can be difficult and there are some drawn positions (see Philidor position#Queen versus rook).
- If the rook has one pawn drawing positions are possible, depending on the pawn and the proximity of the rook and king. See fortress (chess)#Rook and pawn versus queen. Otherwise the queen wins.
- If the rook has two connected pawns the position is usually a draw. For any other two pawns, the queen wins except in the positions where a fortress with one pawn can be reached.
- If the rook has three or more pawns the position is usually a draw but there are cases in which the queen wins and some in which the rook wins.
- If the queen also has a pawn or pawns it wins except in unusual positions (Fine & Benko 2003:570–79).
Piece versus pawns[edit]
|
|
There are many cases for a lone piece versus pawns. The position of the pawns is critical.
- Minor piece versus pawns: A minor piece versus one or two pawns is normally a draw, unless the pawns are advanced. Three pawns either draw or win, depending on how advanced they are. Three connected pawns win against a bishop if they all get past their fourth rank (Fine & Benko 2003:93ff,129–30). A knight can draw against three connected pawns if none are beyond their fourth rank (Müller & Lamprecht 2001:62).
- Rook versus pawns: If the rook's king is not near, one pawn draws and two pawns win. If the rook's king is near, the rook wins over one or two pawns and draws against three. Four pawns usually win but the rook may be able to draw, depending on their position. More than four pawns win against the rook (Fine & Benko 2003:275,292–93).
- Queen versus pawns: A queen can win against any number of pawns, depending on how advanced they are. The queen would win against eight pawns on the second rank but one pawn on the seventh rank may draw (see Queen versus pawn endgame) and two advanced pawns may win (Fine & Benko 2003:526ff).
Endings with no pawns[edit]
a | b | c | d | e | f | g | h |
8 | 8 | ||||||
7 | 7 | ||||||
6 | 6 | ||||||
5 | 5 | ||||||
4 | 4 | ||||||
3 | 3 | ||||||
2 | 2 | ||||||
1 | 1 | ||||||
a | b | c | d | e | f | g | h |
Besides the basic checkmates, there are other endings with no pawns. They do not occur very often in practice. Two of the most common pawnless endgames (when the defense has a piece in addition to the king) are (1) a queen versus a rook and (2) a rook and bishop versus a rook. A queen wins against a rook — see pawnless chess endgame#Queen versus rook. A rook and bishop versus a rook is generally a theoretical draw, but the defense is difficult and there are winning positions (see Rook and bishop versus rook endgame).
Positions with a material imbalance[edit]
A rook is worth roughly two pawns plus a bishop or a knight. A bishop and knight are worth roughly a rook and a pawn, and a queen is worth a rook, a minor piece (bishop or knight) and a pawn (see Chess piece relative value). Three pawns are often enough to win against a minor piece, but two pawns rarely are.
However, with rooks on the board, the bishop often outweighs the pawns. This is because the bishop defends against enemy rook attacks, while the bishop's own rook attacks enemy pawns and reduces the enemy rook to passivity. This relates to Rule 2 with rooks (above).
A bishop is usually worth more than a knight. A bishop is especially valuable when there are pawns on both wings of the board, since it can intercept them quickly.
Effect of tablebases on endgame theory[edit]
Endgame tablebases have made some minor corrections to historical endgame analysis, but they have made some more significant changes to endgame theory too. (The fifty-move rule is not taken into account in these studies.) Major changes to endgame theory as a result of tablebases include (Müller & Lamprecht 2001:8,400–406):
- Queen versus rook (see Philidor position#Queen versus rook). There are two changes here enabling the rook to put up a better defense, but the queen still wins. (a) People usually opt for a second-rank defense with the rook on the second rank and the king behind it (or symmetrical positions on the other edges of the board). Tablebases show that a third-rank defense takes a while to breach, which is difficult for a human to do. (b) People had assumed that the rook needs to stay as close to the king for as long as possible, but tablebases show that it is best to move the rook away from the king at some earlier point (Nunn 2002:49ff).
- Queen and pawn versus queen. Tablebases have shown that this can be won in many more positions than was thought, but the logic of the moves is presently beyond human understanding (Nunn 1995:265).
- Queen versus two bishops. This was thought to be a draw due to the existence of a drawing fortress position, but the queen can win most of the time by preventing the bishops from getting to the fortress. However, it can take up to 71 moves to force a win (Nunn 2002:290ff).
a | b | c | d | e | f | g | h |
8 | 8 | ||||||
7 | 7 | ||||||
6 | 6 | ||||||
5 | 5 | ||||||
4 | 4 | ||||||
3 | 3 | ||||||
2 | 2 | ||||||
1 | 1 | ||||||
a | b | c | d | e | f | g | h |
This position was thought to be drawn, but White to move wins. Some similar positions are actually drawn (e.g. with the queen on e2).
- Queen versus two knights. This was thought to be a draw, but the queen has more winning positions than was previously thought. Also, many analysts gave a position (see diagram) that they thought was a draw but it is actually a win for the queen (Nunn 2002:300ff). In the diagram, White checkmates in 43 moves, starting with 1. Qc7 (the only winning move). Note that Nunn says 'The general result is undoubtedly a draw, but there are many losing positions, some of them very lengthy.' On the other hand, 73.44% of positions are won by the queen, almost all of the remainder being positions where the side with two knights can immediately capture the queen – 97.59% of positions with the side with the queen to move are won by that side.[18] However, these percentages can be misleading, and most 'general results' are based on the analysis of grandmasters using the tablebase data (Müller & Lamprecht 2001:406), (Nunn 2002:324). For instance, although nearly 90 percent of all of these positions are wins for the queen, it is generally a draw if the king is not separated from the knights and they are on reasonable squares (Müller & Lamprecht 2001:339).
a | b | c | d | e | f | g | h |
8 | 8 | ||||||
7 | 7 | ||||||
6 | 6 | ||||||
5 | 5 | ||||||
4 | 4 | ||||||
3 | 3 | ||||||
2 | 2 | ||||||
1 | 1 | ||||||
a | b | c | d | e | f | g | h |
This position was thought to be drawn (Kling and Horwitz, 1851), but White wins.
- Two bishops versus a knight. This was thought to be a draw but the bishops generally win. However, it takes up to 66 moves. The position in the diagram was thought to be a draw for over one hundred years, but tablebases show that White wins in 57 moves. All of the long wins go through this type of semi-fortress position. It takes several moves to force Black out of the temporary fortress in the corner; then precise play with the bishops prevents Black from forming the temporary fortress in another corner (Nunn 1995:265ff). Before computer analysis, Speelman listed this position as unresolved, but 'probably a draw' (Speelman 1981:109).
- Queen and bishop versus two rooks. This was thought to be a draw but the queen and bishop usually win. It takes up to 84 moves (Nunn 2002:367ff).
- Rook and bishop versus bishop and knight, bishops on opposite colors. This was thought to be a draw but the rook and bishop generally win. It takes up to 98 moves (Nunn 2002:342ff). Magnus Carlsen successfully converted this configuration within the 50-move limit against Francisco Vallejo Pons in 2019. Even with best play from the starting RB v BN position, the stronger side would have won a piece well within 50 moves.[19]
- Rook and bishop versus rook. The second-rank defense was discovered using tablebases (Hawkins 2012:198–200).
Longest forced win[edit]
a | b | c | d | e | f | g | h |
8 | 8 | ||||||
7 | 7 | ||||||
6 | 6 | ||||||
5 | 5 | ||||||
4 | 4 | ||||||
3 | 3 | ||||||
2 | 2 | ||||||
1 | 1 | ||||||
a | b | c | d | e | f | g | h |
Black's best move in this position is 1..Rd7+. White checkmates 545 moves later.
King Pawn Endgame Practice
a | b | c | d | e | f | g | h |
8 | 8 | ||||||
7 | 7 | ||||||
6 | 6 | ||||||
5 | 5 | ||||||
4 | 4 | ||||||
3 | 3 | ||||||
2 | 2 | ||||||
1 | 1 | ||||||
a | b | c | d | e | f | g | h |
White to play and win in 549.
In May 2006 a record-shattering 517-move endgame was announced (see first diagram). Marc Bourzutschky found it using a program written by Yakov Konoval. Black's first move is 1.. Rd7+ and White wins the rook in 517 moves. This was determined using the easier-to-calculate depth-to-conversion method, which assumes that the two sides are aiming respectively to reduce the game to a simpler won ending or to delay that conversion. Such endgames do not necessarily represent strictly optimal play from both sides, as Black may delay checkmate by allowing an earlier conversion or White may accelerate it by delaying a conversion (or not making one at all). In September 2009, it was found that the distance to mate (not conversion) in that position was 545 (see the first diagram).[20] The same researchers later confirmed that this (along with variations of it) is the longest 7-man pawnless endgame, and that, with pawns, the longest 7-man endgame is the one depicted in the second diagram. White takes 6 moves to promote the pawn to a Knight (leading to a position similar to the first diagram), after which it takes another 543 moves to win the game.[21]
The fifty-move rule was ignored in the calculation of these results and lengths, and as of 2014, these games could never occur, because of the seventy-five move rule.
Endgame classification[edit]
Endgames can be classified by the material on the board. The standard classification system lists each player's material, including the kings, in the following order: king, queen, bishops, knights, rooks, pawn. Each piece is designated by its algebraic symbol.
For example, if White has a king and pawn, and Black has only a king, the endgame is classified KPK. If White has bishop and knight, and Black has a rook, the endgame is classified KBNKR. Note that KNBKR would be incorrect; bishops come before knights.
In positions with two or more bishops on the board, a 'bishop signature' may be added to clarify the relationship between the bishops. Two methods have been used. The informal method is to designate one color of squares as 'x' and the other color as 'y'. An endgame of KBPKB can be written KBPKB x-y if the bishops are opposite-colored, or KBPKB x-x if the bishops are same-colored. The more formal method is to use a four digit suffix of the form abcd:
- a = number of White light-squared bishops
- b = number of White dark-squared bishops
- c = number of Black light-squared bishops
- d = number of Black dark-squared bishops
Thus, the aforementioned endgame can be written KBPKB_1001 for opposite-color bishops, and KBPKB_1010 for same-color bishops.
In positions with one or more rooks on the board and where one or both players have one or both castling rights, a castling signature may be added to indicate which castling rights exist. The method is to use a one to four character suffix formed by omitting up to three characters from the string KQkq.
Thus the endgame where White has bishop and rook and Black has a rook can be written KBRKR if no castling rights exist or KBRKR_Kq if White may castle on the king's side and Black may castle on the queen's side. In case the position also has two or more bishops the castling signature follows the bishop signature as in KBBNKRR_1100_kq.
GBR code is an alternative method of endgame classification.
The Encyclopedia of Chess Endings – ECE by Chess Informant had a different classification scheme, somewhat similar to the ECO codes, but it is not widely used. The full system is a 53-page index that was contained in the book The Best Endings of Capablanca and Fischer. The code starts with a letter representing the most powerful piece on the board, not counting kings. The order is queen, rook, bishop, knight, and then pawn. (Figurines are used to stand for the pieces.) Each of these has up to 100 subclassifications, for instance R00 through R99. The first digit is a code for the pieces. For instance, R0 contains all endgames with a rook versus pawns and a rook versus a lone king, R8 contains the double rook endgames, and R9 contains the endings with more than four pieces. The second digit is a classification for the number of pawns. For instance, R30 contains endgames with a rook versus a rook without pawns or with one pawn and R38 are rook versus rook endings in which one player has two extra pawns.[22]
Frequency table[edit]
The table below lists the most common endings in actual games by percentage (percentage of games, not percentage of endings; generally pawns go along with the pieces). (Müller & Lamprecht 2001:11–12, 304)
Percent | Pieces | Pieces |
---|---|---|
8.45 | rook | rook |
6.76 | rook & bishop | rook & knight |
3.45 | two rooks | two rooks |
3.37 | rook & bishop | rook & bishop (same color) |
3.29 | bishop | knight |
3.09 | rook & knight | rook & knight |
2.87 | king & pawns | king (and pawns) |
1.92 | rook & bishop | rook & bishop (opposite color) |
1.87 | queen | queen |
1.77 | rook & bishop | rook |
1.65 | bishop | bishop (same color) |
1.56 | knight | knight |
1.51 | rook | bishop |
1.42 | rook & knight | rook |
1.11 | bishop | bishop (opposite color) |
1.01 | bishop | pawns |
0.97 | rook | knight |
0.92 | knight | pawns |
0.90 | queen & minor piece | queen |
0.81 | rook | two minor pieces |
0.75 | rook | pawns |
0.69 | queen | rook & minor piece |
0.67 | rook & pawn | rook ( & no pawns) |
0.56 | rook & two pawns | rook ( & no pawns) |
0.42 | queen | pawns |
0.40 | queen | rook |
0.31 | queen | two rooks |
0.23 | king & one pawn | king |
0.17 | queen | minor piece |
0.09 | queen & one pawn | queen |
0.08 | queen | two minor pieces |
0.02 | bishop & knight | king |
0.01 | queen | three minor pieces |
Quotations[edit]
- '[I]n order to improve your game, you must study the endgame before anything else; for, whereas the endings can be studied and mastered by themselves, the middlegame and the opening must be studied in relation to the endgame.' (Emphasis in original.) (Capablanca 1966:19)
- '.. the endgame is as important as the opening and middlegame .. three of the five losses sustained by Bronstein in his drawn .. match with Botvinnik in 1951 were caused by weak endgame play.' (Hooper & Whyld 1992)
- 'Studying the opening is just memorizing moves and hoping for traps, but studying the endgame is chess.' – Joshua Waitzkin[23]
- 'If you want to win at chess, begin with the ending.' – Irving Chernev[24]
- 'Repeating moves in an ending can be very useful. Apart from the obvious gain of time on the clock one notices that the side with the advantage gains psychological benefit.' – Sergey Belavenets
- 'It cannot be too greatly emphasized that the most important role in pawn endings is played by the king.' – Siegbert Tarrasch
- 'After a bad opening, there is hope for the middle game. After a bad middle game, there is hope for the endgame. But once you are in the endgame, the moment of truth has arrived.' –Edmar Mednis
- 'Patience is the most valuable trait of the endgame player.' –Pal Benko
Literature[edit]
There are many books on endgames, see Chess endgame literature for a large list and the history. Some of the most popular current ones are:
- Basic Chess Endings, by Reuben Fine and Pal Benko, 1941, 2003, McKay. ISBN0-8129-3493-8. The 1941 edition by Fine was the first of the modern endgame books in English. It was recently revised by Benko.
- Dvoretsky's Endgame Manual, second edition, by Mark Dvoretsky, 2006, Russel Enterprises. ISBN1-888690-28-3. A modern manual book by a noted chess teacher.
- Encyclopedia of Chess Endings III – Rook Endings 2, Andras Adorjan, Alexander Beliavsky, Svetozar Gligorić, Robert Hübner, Anatoly Karpov, Garry Kasparov, Viktor Kortchnoi, Anthony Miles, Nikolay Minev, John Nunn and Jan Timman., 1986, Chess Informant, ISBN86-7297-005-5. Comprehensive book with 1746 endings divided in groups according to ECE classification. Annotated in System of chess signs .
- Essential Chess Endings: the Tournament Player's Guide, by James Howell, 1997, Batsford. ISBN0-7134-8189-7. A small but comprehensive book.
- Fundamental Chess Endings, by Karsten Müller and Frank Lamprecht, 2001, Gambit Publications. ISBN1-901983-53-6. Highly regarded – comprehensive and modern.
- Grandmaster Secrets: Endings, by Andrew Soltis, 1997, 2003, Thinker's Press, ISBN0-938650-66-1. An elementary book.
- Just the Facts!: Winning Endgame Knowledge in One Volume, Lev Alburt and Nikolai Krogius, 2000, Newmarket Press. ISBN1-889323-15-2. A good introductory book.
- Pandolfini's Endgame Course, by Bruce Pandolfini, 1988, Fireside, ISBN0-671-65688-0. Many short elementary endgame lessons.
- Silman's Complete Endgame Course: From Beginner To Master, Jeremy Silman, 2007, Siles Press, ISBN1-890085-10-3. Has a unique approach, it presents material in order of difficulty and the need to know of various classes of players. It starts with material for the absolute beginner and progresses up to master level material.
- Winning Chess Endings, by Yasser Seirawan, 2003, Everyman Chess. ISBN1-85744-348-9. A good introductory book.
- One Pawn Saves the Day: A World Champion's Favorite Studies, by Sergei Tkachenko, 2017, Limited Liability Company Elk and Ruby Publishing House ISBN5-950-04334-0. 100 studies whose common theme is that white ends up with just one pawn in the finale, yet manages to win or draw.
- One Knight Saves the Day: A World Champion's Favorite Studies, by Sergei Tkachenko, 2017, Limited Liability Company Elk and Ruby Publishing House ISBN5-950-04335-9. 100 studies whose common theme is that white ends up with just one knight in the finale, yet manages to win or draw.
- One Bishop Saves the Day: A World Champion's Favorite Studies, by Sergei Tkachenko, 2017, Limited Liability Company Elk and Ruby Publishing House ISBN5-950-04336-7. 100 studies whose common theme is that white ends up with just one bishop in the finale, yet manages to win or draw.
- One Rook Saves the Day: A World Champion's Favorite Studies, by Sergei Tkachenko, 2017, Limited Liability Company Elk and Ruby Publishing House ISBN5-950-04337-5. 100 studies whose common theme is that white ends up with just one rook in the finale, yet manages to win or draw.
See also[edit]
Endgame topics
Specific endgames
References[edit]
- ^Basic Chess Endgames, Ruben Fine & revised by Pal Benko, 2003
- ^A Pocket Guide to Endgames, David Hooper, 1970
- ^Practical Chess Endings, Paul Keres, 1973
- ^Chess Endings for the Practical Player, Ludek Pachman, 1977
- ^Batsford Chess Endings, by Speelman, Tisdall, and Wade
- ^Pandolfini's Endgame Course, Bruce Pandolfini, 1988
- ^Winning Chess Endings, by Yasser Seirwan
- ^Winning Chess Endgames, by Tony Kosten, 1987
- ^The Mammoth Book of Chess, by Graham Burgess, 2009
- ^Chess Endings: Essential Knowledge, by Yuri Averbach, 1993
- ^Fundamental Chess Endings by Karsten Müller and Frank Lamprecht, 2003
- ^Portisch vs. Tal
- ^Müller, Karsten (2001). 'Endgame Corner'(PDF). Chess Cafe.
- ^Winter, Edward, 'Rook endgames' – Chess Notes, Number 5498
- ^
- ^Leko vs. Kramnik
- ^
- ^'Chess program Wilhelm'. Archived from the original on December 8, 2008. + 'Nalimov Engame Tablebases'. AutoChess.
- ^Francisco Vallejo Pons vs Magnus Carlsen, GRENKE Chess Classic, Karlsruhe GER, rd 2, 21 April 2019.
- ^Lomonosov Endgame Tablebases
- ^[1]
- ^ECE classifications, PDF of EG article
- ^Endgame quotes
- ^Chess Life, Sept. 1961, p. 253
Bibliography
- Alburt, Lev; Krogius, Nikolai (2000), Just the Facts!: Winning Endgame Knowledge in One Volume, Newmarket Press, ISBN1-889323-15-2
- Beliavsky, Alexander; Mikhalchishin, Adrian (1995), Winning Endgame Technique, Batsford, ISBN0-7134-7512-9
- Beliavsky, Alexander; Mikhalchishin, Adrian (2003), Modern Endgame Practice, Batsford, ISBN0-7134-8740-2
- Benko, Pal (2007), Pal Benko's Endgame Laboratory, Ishi Press, ISBN0-923891-88-9
- Capablanca, José Raúl (1966), Last Lectures, Cornerstone Library
- de la Villa, Jesús (2008), 100 Endgames You Must Know, New in Chess, ISBN978-90-5691-244-4
- Dvoretsky, Mark (2006), Dvoretsky's Endgame Manual (2nd ed.), Russell Enterprises, ISBN1-888690-28-3
- Dvoretsky, Mark; Yusupov, Artur (2008), Secrets of Endgame Technique, Olms, ISBN978-3-283-00517-7
- Emms, John (2008), The Survival Guide to Rook Endings, Gambit Publications, ISBN978-1-904600-94-7
- Euwe, Max; Meiden, Walter (1978) [1966], The Road to Chess Mastery, McKay, ISBN0-679-14525-7
- Fine, Reuben (1941), Basic Chess Endgames, David McKay Company Inc., ISBN0-7134-0552-X
- Fine, Reuben (1952), The Middle Game in Chess, McKay
- Fine, Reuben; Benko, Pal (2003) [1941], Basic Chess Endings, McKay, ISBN0-8129-3493-8
- Flear, Glenn (2007), Practical Endgame Play – beyond the basics: the definitive guide to the endgames that really matter, Everyman Chess, ISBN978-1-85744-555-8
- Hawkins, Jonathan (2012), Amateur to IM: Proven Ideas and Training Methods, Mongoose, ISBN978-1-936277-40-7
- Hooper, David; Whyld, Kenneth (1992), The Oxford Companion to Chess (2nd ed.), Oxford University Press, ISBN0-19-866164-9
- Howell, James (1997), Essential Chess Endings: The tournament player's guide, Batsford, ISBN0-7134-8189-7
- Kaufeld, Jurgen; Kern, Guido (2011), Grandmaster Chess Strategy: What amateurs can learn from Ulf Andersson's positional masterpieces, New in Chess, ISBN978-90-5691-346-5
- Korchnoi, Victor (2002), Practical Rook Endings, Olms, ISBN3-283-00401-3
- Mednis, Edmar (1987), Questions and Answers on Practical Endgame Play, Chess Enterprises, ISBN0-931462-69-X
- Mednis, Edmar; Crouch, Colin (1992), Rate Your Endgame, Cadogan, ISBN978-1-85744-174-1
- Minev, Nikolay (2004), A Practical Guide to Rook Endgames, Russell Enterprises, ISBN1-888690-22-4
- Müller, Karsten; Lamprecht, Frank (2001), Fundamental Chess Endings, Gambit Publications, ISBN1-901983-53-6
- Müller, Karsten; Lamprecht, Frank (2007), Secrets of Pawn Endings, Gambit Publications, ISBN978-1-904600-88-6
- Nunn, John (1995), Secrets of Minor-Piece Endings, Batsford, ISBN0-8050-4228-8
- Nunn, John (2002), Secrets of Pawnless Endings, Gambit Publications, ISBN1-901983-65-X
- Nunn, John (2007), Secrets of Practical Chess (2nd ed.), Gambit Publications, ISBN978-1-904600-70-1
- Nunn, John (2010), Nunn's Chess Endings, volume 1, Gambit Publications, ISBN978-1-906454-21-0
- Portisch, Lajos; Sárközy, Balázs (1981), Six Hundred Endings, Pergamon Press, ISBN978-0-08-024137-1
- Soltis, Andy (2003), Grandmaster Secrets: Endings, Thinker's Press, ISBN0-938650-66-1
- Speelman, Jonathan (1981), Endgame Preparation, Batsford, ISBN0-7134-4000-7
- Speelman, Jon; Tisdall, Jon; Wade, Bob (1993), Batsford Chess Endings, B. T. Batsford, ISBN0-7134-4420-7
- Troitzky, Alexey (2006), Collection of Chess Studies (1937), Ishi Press, ISBN0-923891-10-2 The last part (pages 197–257) is a supplement containing Troitzky's analysis of two knights versus pawns.
- Watson, John (1998), Secrets of Modern Chess Strategy, Gambit, ISBN978-1-901983-07-4
- Whitaker, Norman; Hartleb, Glenn (1960), 365 Ausgewählte Endspiele (365 Selected Endings), ISBN0-923891-84-6
Further reading[edit]
- Barden, Leonard (1975), How to Play the Endgame in Chess, Indianapolis/New York: The Bobbs-Merill Company, Inc., ISBN0-672-52086-9
- Huberman (Liskov), Barbara Jane (1968), A program to play chess end games, Stanford University Department of Computer Science, Technical Report CS 106, Stanford Artificial Intelligence Project Memo AI-65
- Stiller, Lewis (1996), Multilinear Algebra and Chess Endgames(PDF), Berkeley, California: Mathematical Sciences Research Institute, Games of No Chance, MSRI Publications, Volume 29Italic or bold markup not allowed in:
|publisher=
(help) - Rogers, Ian (January 2010), 'The Lazy Person's Guide to Endgames', Chess Life, 2010 (1): 37–41
External links[edit]
The Wikibook Chess has a page on the topic of: The Endgame |
Retrieved from 'https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Chess_endgame&oldid=915942917#King_and_pawn_endings'
The chessendgame with a king and a pawn versus a king is one of the most important and fundamental endgames, other than the basic checkmates (Lasker 1915). It is important to master this endgame, since most other endgames have the potential of reducing to this type of endgame via exchanges of pieces. It is important to be able to tell quickly whether a given position is a win or a draw, and to know the technique for playing it. The crux of this endgame is whether or not the pawn can be promoted (or queened), so checkmate can be forced.
In the first paragraph of one of his books on endgames, Peter Griffiths emphasized the importance of this endgame:
There is simply no substitute to a clear understanding of when and how these positions are won or drawn, not only so that one can play them accurately, but in order to recognize in advance what the correct result should be. If you can do that, you can exchange off quite confidently from a more complex position (Griffiths 1976:1).
In the positions in which the pawn wins, at most nineteen moves are required to promote the pawn (with optimal play) and at most nine more moves to checkmate, assuming that the pawn was promoted to a queen (Levy & Newborn 1991:144).
Except for the section on defending and some actual games, it will be assumed that White has a king and pawn and Black has a lone king. In general, Black should place his king in the path of the pawn to try to prevent its promotion.
- 2Key squares
- 2.1Rook pawn
- 2.2Pawns other than rook pawns
- 4Rules
- 4.3Case 3, conditions (a) and (b) are met
- 5Defending drawn positions
- 7Examples
Rule of the square[edit]
a | b | c | d | e | f | g | h |
8 | 8 | ||||||
7 | 7 | ||||||
6 | 6 | ||||||
5 | 5 | ||||||
4 | 4 | ||||||
3 | 3 | ||||||
2 | 2 | ||||||
1 | 1 | ||||||
a | b | c | d | e | f | g | h |
Rule of the square
The most basic rule is when the pawn can queen unassisted by its king. The rule of the square determines if this is possible. In this position, the pawn is on the fifth square from the queening square (counting the queening square itself). A square of 5×5 squares with the queening square in one corner and the pawn in an adjacent corner can be imagined. (An easy method is to construct the square with a diagonal from the pawn to the last rank.) If the black king can move into this square, he can catch the pawn, otherwise the pawn wins the race.
In this position, if it is Black's move, he can move ..Kb4 and enter the square, catching the pawn. If it is White's move, the pawn advances, the square shrinks to 4×4, and the king cannot move into the square, so the pawn queens (Müller & Lamprecht 2007:15). (See Wikibooks – Chess/The Endgame for further discussion on the rule of the square.)
a | b | c | d | e | f | g | h |
8 | 8 | ||||||
7 | 7 | ||||||
6 | 6 | ||||||
5 | 5 | ||||||
4 | 4 | ||||||
3 | 3 | ||||||
2 | 2 | ||||||
1 | 1 | ||||||
a | b | c | d | e | f | g | h |
Black to move. Black can move inside the square of the pawn, but the white king can block it.
Even if the defending king can move inside the square of the pawn, the attacking king may be able to block it, as in the diagram from Fishbein.
- 1.. Ke4
Moving into the square.
- 2. Kb4! Kd5 3. Kb5! Kd6 4. Kb6! Kd7 5. Kb7! Kd6 6. a5 Kc5 7. a6 Kb5 8. a7
and the pawn promotes (Fishbein 1993:2).
a | b | c | d | e | f | g | h |
8 | 8 | ||||||
7 | 7 | ||||||
6 | 6 | ||||||
5 | 5 | ||||||
4 | 4 | ||||||
3 | 3 | ||||||
2 | 2 | ||||||
1 | 1 | ||||||
a | b | c | d | e | f | g | h |
Note that in some cases, the king can catch a pawn when he is outside the square by creating threats that must be parried, and gain a tempo. In the Réti endgame study (by Richard Réti, 1921), the white king is outside the square of the black pawn, two tempi short of catching the pawn. However, White can draw by 'going after two birds at once'.
- 1. Kg7! h4 2. Kf6! Kb6
If 2..h3 then 3.Ke7 or 3.Ke6 and the pawns promote together.
- 3. Ke5! Kxc6
If 3..h3 then 4.Kd6 h2 5.c7, draw.
- 4. Kf4, resulting in a draw (Dvoretsky 2011:29).
Key squares[edit]
If the defending king is within the 'square', then the pawn cannot queen without the help of its own king. The first concept that needs to be introduced is that of the key square, also known as a critical square. A key square is a square such that if White's king occupies it, White can force the pawn to promotion, regardless of where the black king is and regardless of which side is to move, and against any defense. The key squares are relative to the position of the pawn. Whether or not the white king can reach a key square depends on the position of the pieces. Of course, even if the white king occupies a key square, accurate play is still required in order to promote the pawn (Müller & Lamprecht 2007:20–22).
Note that the key square is in front of the pawn. Endgame expert Yuri Averbakh said, just as a father leads his child across the road rather than pushing the child in front, the king should also lead the pawn to the queening square.
Rook pawn[edit]
a | b | c | d | e | f | g | h |
8 | 8 | ||||||
7 | 7 | ||||||
6 | 6 | ||||||
5 | 5 | ||||||
4 | 4 | ||||||
3 | 3 | ||||||
2 | 2 | ||||||
1 | 1 | ||||||
a | b | c | d | e | f | g | h |
Dots are key squares for a rook pawn. In addition, Black stops the pawn if the black king gets to any of the squares marked 'X'.
A rook pawn (on the a-file or h-file) has much less chance of promoting than other pawns. The reason is that if the opposing king can get to any square in front of the pawn, it cannot be driven away from the file, and the pawn cannot queen. Black can always draw if he can reach the c8-square for an a-pawn (pawn on the a-file), or the equivalent f8 for an h-pawn, except for the position in the next diagram, with White to move. Therefore, an advanced rook pawn generally has two key squares: b7 and b8 for an a-pawn, and g7 and g8 for an h-pawn. The key squares are indicated by the black dots in the position in the diagram.
If White's king can reach either of the two key squares, he can keep Black's king away and the pawn will promote. If the Black king can reach any of the squares marked with a dot or an 'X', it stops the pawn (Silman 2007:105–6).
a | b | c | d | e | f | g | h |
8 | 8 | ||||||
7 | 7 | ||||||
6 | 6 | ||||||
5 | 5 | ||||||
4 | 4 | ||||||
3 | 3 | ||||||
2 | 2 | ||||||
1 | 1 | ||||||
a | b | c | d | e | f | g | h |
An exception: White to move wins because the pawn promotes after 1.h7.
The pawn can also promote in the position on the right (if White is to move), after
- 1. h7
However, in practice most of the time the black king can stop a rook pawn because it is usually close enough that the white king cannot prevent it from getting in front of the pawn (or capturing it).
Examples from games[edit]
a | b | c | d | e | f | g | h |
8 | 8 | ||||||
7 | 7 | ||||||
6 | 6 | ||||||
5 | 5 | ||||||
4 | 4 | ||||||
3 | 3 | ||||||
2 | 2 | ||||||
1 | 1 | ||||||
a | b | c | d | e | f | g | h |
Position after 58.. Kb7, White wins by reaching a key square (dots).
The game Oscar Panno–Miguel Najdorf, Buenos Aires 1968,[1] continued
- 59. Kg4 Kc7 60. Kg5
and White won because the white king can reach the key square g7. Black resigned in light of
- 60.. Kd7 61. Kg6 Ke7
If 61..Ke6, then 62.h4; not 62.Kg7?? because 62..Kf5! wins the pawn.
- 62. Kg7
Moving to a key square, the only move to win.
- 62.. Ke6 63. h4 Kf5 64. h5
The only move to win. The king protects the pawn as it promotes.
If Black was to move in this position, he would draw by reaching the f8-square and preventing the white king from getting to a key square, and the pawn cannot promote (Müller & Lamprecht 2007:22).
a | b | c | d | e | f | g | h |
8 | 8 | ||||||
7 | 7 | ||||||
6 | 6 | ||||||
5 | 5 | ||||||
4 | 4 | ||||||
3 | 3 | ||||||
2 | 2 | ||||||
1 | 1 | ||||||
a | b | c | d | e | f | g | h |
Position after 95..Kxa4 ½–½
This position from a game between Gedeon Barcza and future world championBobby Fischer was a draw.[2] (White's 96.Kd2 followed by 97.Kc1 draws.)
Pawns other than rook pawns[edit]
a | b | c | d | e | f | g | h |
8 | 8 | ||||||
7 | 7 | ||||||
6 | 6 | ||||||
5 | 5 | ||||||
4 | 4 | ||||||
3 | 3 | ||||||
2 | 2 | ||||||
1 | 1 | ||||||
a | b | c | d | e | f | g | h |
Dots indicate key squares for a pawn on the second and third ranks
a | b | c | d | e | f | g | h |
8 | 8 | ||||||
7 | 7 | ||||||
6 | 6 | ||||||
5 | 5 | ||||||
4 | 4 | ||||||
3 | 3 | ||||||
2 | 2 | ||||||
1 | 1 | ||||||
a | b | c | d | e | f | g | h |
Dots indicate key squares for a pawn on the fourth and fifth ranks
a | b | c | d | e | f | g | h |
8 | 8 | ||||||
7 | 7 | ||||||
6 | 6 | ||||||
5 | 5 | ||||||
4 | 4 | ||||||
3 | 3 | ||||||
2 | 2 | ||||||
1 | 1 | ||||||
a | b | c | d | e | f | g | h |
Dots indicate key squares for a pawn on the sixth and seventh ranks
Pawns other than rook pawns have a much better chance of promoting. If the pawn is on the second, third, or fourth rank, there are three key squares – the square two squares in front of the pawn and the squares to the left and right of that square. The key squares are indicated by the black dots, for example see the diagram on the left. If the pawn is on the fifth or sixth rank, there are six key squares: the square in front of the pawn and the squares to the left and right, as well as the square two squares in front of the pawn, and the squares to the left and right of it, see the diagram in the middle. When the pawn is on the seventh rank, the key squares are the squares on the seventh and eighth rank that touch the pawn's square (see the diagram on the right).
You will need to unzip these files before use.(265 Kb)Written by: Kenny Ramage2D Metric Structural Steel Sections.(274 Kb)Written by: Kenny Ramage2D Metric Piping Sections.(198 kb)Written by: AlanWould you like to design your own custom bicycle?.(1 kb)Written by: M.P. Free autocad lisp routines. AutoLISP ProgramsAll programs are downloaded as.ZIP archives.
Operating system. The 'Operating system' provides utilities to optimize your system, monitor its operation and manage your files. Android operating system download 5.1. Tablet free download - The Tablet, Wacom Tablet, Wacom Tablet, and many more programs. Wacom Technologies Corporation Downloads. Get the driver for Wacom Graphire3 tablets.
An easy way to remember the key squares is to note that if the pawn is not beyond the midpoint of the board, there are three key squares that are two ranks ahead. If the pawn is on the fifth or sixth rank there are six key squares on the two ranks in front of the pawn. If the pawn is on the seventh rank, the adjoining squares on the seventh and eighth ranks are key squares.
Once White's king occupies a key square he can keep the opposing king from blocking the advance of the pawn, as will be shown below (Müller & Lamprecht 2007:16–18).
Knight pawn exception[edit]
a | b | c | d | e | f | g | h |
8 | 8 | ||||||
7 | 7 | ||||||
6 | 6 | ||||||
5 | 5 | ||||||
4 | 4 | ||||||
3 | 3 | ||||||
2 | 2 | ||||||
1 | 1 | ||||||
a | b | c | d | e | f | g | h |
Exception to key squares – stalemate with Black to move if the white king is on f7 or f8
There is an exception to the key squares rule with a knight pawn, the black king in the corner, and Black to move. In the diagram on the right, with the white king on either the square indicated or the square marked by 'x', the position is stalemate if Black is to move. This is sometimes known as the b- (or g-) pawn trap.
a | b | c | d | e | f | g | h |
8 | 8 | ||||||
7 | 7 | ||||||
6 | 6 | ||||||
5 | 5 | ||||||
4 | 4 | ||||||
3 | 3 | ||||||
2 | 2 | ||||||
1 | 1 | ||||||
a | b | c | d | e | f | g | h |
White to move
In this position, the best move is 1.Kh6! If
- 1. Kf6?! Kh7
Now if 2.g6+? then 2..Kh8! draws, or
- 2. Kf7 Kh8
does not work for White because 3.g6?? is stalemate. White must play
- 3. Kg6 Kg8
getting back to the original position, followed by 4.Kh6 (Hawkins 2012:35).
This position came up in a game between Harry Golombek and Arturo Pomar. White made a different move which takes longer to win and has to avoid the exceptional position:
- 1. Kf6 Kh7! 2. Kf7 Kh8 3. Kg6 Kg8 (back to the original position) 4. Kh6! Kh8 5. g6 Kg8 6. g7 Kf7 7. Kh7 1–0 (Makarov 2007:14–15).
Any key square by any route[edit]
a | b | c | d | e | f | g | h |
8 | 8 | ||||||
7 | 7 | ||||||
6 | 6 | ||||||
5 | 5 | ||||||
4 | 4 | ||||||
3 | 3 | ||||||
2 | 2 | ||||||
1 | 1 | ||||||
a | b | c | d | e | f | g | h |
White gets to a winning position by getting to the key square b5.
It is important that White wins if he gets his king to any key square and the path to a key square is not always direct. For instance, in the diagram, the key squares for White are b5, c5, and d5; however, Black can prevent the white king from reaching a key square directly. For example:
- 1. Kd2 Ke7 2. Kd3 Kd7 3. Kc4 Kc6
taking the opposition (see below).
However, the white king can reach a key square (b5) by going on the other side of the pawn:
- 1. Kc2! Ke7 2. Kb3 Kd6 3. Kb4 Kc6 4. Kc4
Opposition, and Black is in zugzwang.
- 4..Kd6 5. Kb5
or
- 4.. Kb6 5. Kd5
and the white king has occupied a key square and has a winning position (Müller & Lamprecht 2007:20).
Opposition[edit]
a | b | c | d | e | f | g | h |
8 | 8 | ||||||
7 | 7 | ||||||
6 | 6 | ||||||
5 | 5 | ||||||
4 | 4 | ||||||
3 | 3 | ||||||
2 | 2 | ||||||
1 | 1 | ||||||
a | b | c | d | e | f | g | h |
White wins by simply marching to a key square via c5. Taking the opposition only draws.
The second concept needed is opposition – when two kings face each other with only one square in between, the side with the move may have to move the king away and allow the opposing king to advance. The other king has the opposition.
However, Averbakh pointed out that the opposition is a means to an end; the end is penetration to a key square. If you can penetrate without the opposition, then do so. In this diagram, White should seize a key square by playing:
- 1. Kc5
and moving to a key square on the next move (e.g. 1..Kd7 2.Kb6). Taking the opposition by 1.Ke4 draws (as do any other moves).
Rules[edit]
a | b | c | d | e | f | g | h |
8 | 8 | ||||||
7 | 7 | ||||||
6 | 6 | ||||||
5 | 5 | ||||||
4 | 4 | ||||||
3 | 3 | ||||||
2 | 2 | ||||||
1 | 1 | ||||||
a | b | c | d | e | f | g | h |
Exception to rule 1, White to move wins.
If the pawn is not a rook pawn some rules apply:
- Rule 1:With one exception, if the black king can get to the square in front of the pawn, or the square in front of that (which are key squares), he draws.
The reason is that if the black king alternates between those two squares, he can keep the white king from getting to a key square. The exception is the position in the diagram, and only if White is to move, because of
- 1. d7 Ke7
Black was in zugzwang.
- 2. Kc7
followed by
- 3. d8=Q
Otherwise, if the black king stays on one of those two squares, he keeps the white king from occupying a key square (Müller & Lamprecht 2007:16,21).
Rule 2:White wins if at least any two of the following conditions are met:- (a) his king is in front of the pawn
- (b) he has the opposition
- (c) his king is on the sixth rank (Müller & Lamprecht 2007:21).
In positions in which fewer than two of the conditions are met, it may or may not be possible to get to a position meeting at least two of the conditions, depending on the position of the pieces and who is to move. In such positions, if the attacker can get to a position that meets two conditions, he wins. On the other hand, the defender may be able to prevent the attacker from getting to such a position (see #Defending drawn positions). Recall that rule 1 above gives a condition which draws for Black.
There are three cases to be considered. In any of these three cases, the white king is able to force his way onto a key square and thus reach a winning position. Accurate play from that position is still needed to win the game.
Case 1, conditions (b) and (c) are met[edit]
a | b | c | d | e | f | g | h |
8 | 8 | ||||||
7 | 7 | ||||||
6 | 6 | ||||||
5 | 5 | ||||||
4 | 4 | ||||||
3 | 3 | ||||||
2 | 2 | ||||||
1 | 1 | ||||||
a | b | c | d | e | f | g | h |
White wins if Black is to move.
Conditions (b) and (c) are met in this diagram, if it is Black's move. Black cannot prevent the white king from reaching the key square d7.
- 1.. Ke8 2. e7 Kf7
Black was in zugzwang.
- 3. Kd7 (a key square)
followed by
- 4. e8=Q
and White wins (Müller & Lamprecht 2001:22).
This position illustrates an important rule of thumb: If the White king is on its sixth rank, the pawn must be advanced to the seventh rank without giving check (Müller & Lamprecht 2001:22). (If White's king is on the sixth rank and the pawn checks the Black king when it advances to the seventh rank, the black king can move in front of the pawn, resulting in a draw. In that case White has to either give up the pawn or move the king behind the pawn into stalemate.)
Case 2, conditions (a) and (c) are met[edit]
a | b | c | d | e | f | g | h |
8 | 8 | ||||||
7 | 7 | ||||||
6 | 6 | ||||||
5 | 5 | ||||||
4 | 4 | ||||||
3 | 3 | ||||||
2 | 2 | ||||||
1 | 1 | ||||||
a | b | c | d | e | f | g | h |
White wins with either side to move
Conditions (a) and (c) are met in this diagram, with either side to move.
If it is Black's move in this diagram, the game could go
- 1.. Kg8 2. Kh6 Kh8
Black was in zugzwang.
- 3. g6 Kg8 4. g7 Kf7 5. Kh7
and White wins because the pawn advanced to the seventh rank without giving check, as in the position in the diagram in the previous section.
If it is White's move in this diagram,
- 1. Kf7 (a key square)
and Black cannot prevent the pawn from queening (Müller & Lamprecht 2001:22–23).
White must take a little more care with a knight pawn. If White moves 1.Kf6, Black can reply 1..Kh7 and White must back up with 2.Kf7 Kh8 and proceed as above, because 2.g6+? Kh8! 3.Kf7 is stalemate (Müller & Lamprecht 2001:22).
Case 3, conditions (a) and (b) are met[edit]
a | b | c | d | e | f | g | h |
8 | 8 | ||||||
7 | 7 | ||||||
6 | 6 | ||||||
5 | 5 | ||||||
4 | 4 | ||||||
3 | 3 | ||||||
2 | 2 | ||||||
1 | 1 | ||||||
a | b | c | d | e | f | g | h |
White wins if Black is to move.
Conditions (a) and (b) are met in this diagram, if Black is to move. The game could continue
- 1.. Kd6 2. Kf5 Kd7 3. Kf6 Kd8 4. e4 Kd7 5. e5 Ke8 6. Ke6
White takes the opposition. White's king has reached the sixth rank before the pawn; 6.e6?? Kf8 draws.
- 6.. Kd8 7. Kf7
and White wins (Fine & Benko 2003:9). There are several other variations, depending on Black's moves.
Example from Maróczy vs. Marshall[edit]
a | b | c | d | e | f | g | h |
8 | 8 | ||||||
7 | 7 | ||||||
6 | 6 | ||||||
5 | 5 | ||||||
4 | 4 | ||||||
3 | 3 | ||||||
2 | 2 | ||||||
1 | 1 | ||||||
a | b | c | d | e | f | g | h |
Black to move wins
In this example from Géza Maróczy–Frank Marshall, Monte Carlo 1903,[3] Black to move gets his king in front of the pawn with the opposition:
- 1.. Kg4! 2. Kh2 Kf3 3. Kh3 g4+ 4. Kh2 Kf2! 5. Kh1 Kg3 6. Kg1 Kh3!
and the game could continue:
- 7. Kh1 g3 8. Kg1 g2 0–1 (Matanović 1982:19, 21).
Case 4, all three conditions are met[edit]
a | b | c | d | e | f | g | h |
8 | 8 | ||||||
7 | 7 | ||||||
6 | 6 | ||||||
5 | 5 | ||||||
4 | 4 | ||||||
3 | 3 | ||||||
2 | 2 | ||||||
1 | 1 | ||||||
a | b | c | d | e | f | g | h |
White wins, the ideal situation
Of course, the ideal situation is when all three conditions are met. In this diagram, if Black is to move all three conditions are met and White wins easily:
- 1.. Kd8 2. Kb7
and the pawn will promote (e.g. 2..Kd7 3.c6+ followed by 4.c7 and 5.c8).
King And Pawn Endgame Triangulation
If White is to move in this position, then conditions (a) and (c) are met, so White wins:
- 1. Kd6 Kd8 2. c6 Kc8 3. c7 Kb7 4. Kd7
etc, as above.
This emphasizes the importance of getting the king to the sixth rank in front of the pawn. If this configuration is achieved, White wins no matter which side is to move (Flear 2004:21).
Exception – rook pawn[edit]
a | b | c | d | e | f | g | h |
8 | 8 | ||||||
7 | 7 | ||||||
6 | 6 | ||||||
5 | 5 | ||||||
4 | 4 | ||||||
3 | 3 | ||||||
2 | 2 | ||||||
1 | 1 | ||||||
a | b | c | d | e | f | g | h |
Draw, no matter who is to play.
For a rook pawn, it is possible for Black to draw even if all three conditions are met. In the diagram, all three conditions are satisfied (opposition is satisfied if it is Black's turn) but it is a draw no matter whose move it is.
If it is Black to move:
- 1.. Kb8 2. Kb6 Ka8 3. a6 Kb8 4. a7+ Ka8
leads to either stalemate or White giving up the pawn. Or if
- 1.. Kb8 2. Kb5 Ka8 3. Kb6 Kb8 4. a6 Ka8
leads to a draw. If it is White to move:
- 1. Kb6 Kb8 2. a6 Ka8 3. a7
is stalemate. Or:
- 1. Kb6 Kb8 2. Kb5 Ka8 3. Kb6 Kb8 4. a6 Ka8
leads to either White giving up the pawn or stalemate.
In both cases with White to move or Black to move, all Black needs to do is shuffle between a8 and b8 and White's king can never reach the key square b7 or b8.
a | b | c | d | e | f | g | h |
8 | 8 | ||||||
7 | 7 | ||||||
6 | 6 | ||||||
5 | 5 | ||||||
4 | 4 | ||||||
3 | 3 | ||||||
2 | 2 | ||||||
1 | 1 | ||||||
a | b | c | d | e | f | g | h |
Draw, no matter who is to play.
In the second diagram, it is again a draw no matter whose turn it is.
If it is White's turn:
- 1. Kh8 Kf8 2. h7 Kf7
and this time it is White who is stalemated. If it is Black's turn:
- 1..Kf8 2. Kg6 Kg8
and the position in the previous diagram is reached which is a draw no matter who is to play. (Nunn 2009)
Defending drawn positions[edit]
Now consider defending positions when only one of the conditions of Rule 2 is met, which is not sufficient to win if the defender is able to prevent the attacker from getting a position that meets at least two of the conditions.
The king is in front of the pawn[edit]
a | b | c | d | e | f | g | h |
8 | 8 | ||||||
7 | 7 | ||||||
6 | 6 | ||||||
5 | 5 | ||||||
4 | 4 | ||||||
3 | 3 | ||||||
2 | 2 | ||||||
1 | 1 | ||||||
a | b | c | d | e | f | g | h |
King in front of pawn, White to move draws
If the king is in front of the pawn and neither of the other two conditions is met, the defense is easy (Matanović 1982:19).
In this diagram, with White to move, Black's king is in front of the pawn, but it is not on its sixth rank and it does not have the opposition. White draws by
- 1. Kb2
taking the opposition and preventing the black king from getting the opposition or advancing to its sixth rank. (Indeed, this is the only move that draws. Sometimes this position is reached after Black has captured a pawn. To draw, White must be in a position to move his king to take this direct opposition.) Then if the black king steps to the side, White simply maintains the opposition:
- 1.. Kc4 2. Kc2
If the pawn now advances, White gets to a drawn position by moving in front of the pawn. (Recall that if the opposing king is on the square in front of the pawn or the square in front of that, the position is a draw, with one exception.)
- 2.. b4 3. Kb2 (next diagram)
a | b | c | d | e | f | g | h |
8 | 8 | ||||||
7 | 7 | ||||||
6 | 6 | ||||||
5 | 5 | ||||||
4 | 4 | ||||||
3 | 3 | ||||||
2 | 2 | ||||||
1 | 1 | ||||||
a | b | c | d | e | f | g | h |
Position after 3. Kb2, Black to move, draw
Note that 3.Kb1 would lose to 3..Kb3 because Black now has satisfied all three conditions of rule 2.
Black to move cannot make any progress from this position; the white king simply stays on b2 or b3, unless Black advances the pawn again, in which case the king moves between b1 and b2. Black cannot disrupt this without stalemate, for instance 3..b3 4.Kb1 Kc3 5.Kc1 b2+ 6.Kb1 Kb3 stalemate.
The king has the opposition[edit]
a | b | c | d | e | f | g | h |
8 | 8 | ||||||
7 | 7 | ||||||
6 | 6 | ||||||
5 | 5 | ||||||
4 | 4 | ||||||
3 | 3 | ||||||
2 | 2 | ||||||
1 | 1 | ||||||
a | b | c | d | e | f | g | h |
Draw with White to move
In this diagram, with White to move Black's king has the opposition, but neither of the other conditions. White to move simply moves
- 1. Kd2
and black cannot promote the pawn, for example:
- 1.. d3 2. Kd1
The defending king must drop back vertically.
- 2.. Ke3 3. Ke1 d2+ 4. Kd1
and now either the king must move away from the pawn and allow it to be captured, or move 4..Kd3 resulting in a draw by stalemate (Matanović 1982:18).
The king is on the sixth rank[edit]
a | b | c | d | e | f | g | h |
8 | 8 | ||||||
7 | 7 | ||||||
6 | 6 | ||||||
5 | 5 | ||||||
4 | 4 | ||||||
3 | 3 | ||||||
2 | 2 | ||||||
1 | 1 | ||||||
a | b | c | d | e | f | g | h |
Draw with Black to move
In this diagram the black king is on its sixth rank, but with Black to move it does not have the opposition. If the Black king moves, the white king simply goes to d2 (best) or d1. If the pawn advances, the white king moves to d1 and a draw results as above (Matanović 1982:18).
A player should be familiar with both the attacking and defending roles, since a wrong move by the defender may allow the attacker to get to a winning position and a wrong move by the attacker may give up one of the conditions of rule 2, resulting in a draw.
Example from Gligorić versus Fischer[edit]
a | b | c | d | e | f | g | h |
8 | 8 | ||||||
7 | 7 | ||||||
6 | 6 | ||||||
5 | 5 | ||||||
4 | 4 | ||||||
3 | 3 | ||||||
2 | 2 | ||||||
1 | 1 | ||||||
a | b | c | d | e | f | g | h |
Black to move, draw. (The position is also a draw with White to move.)
In the game Svetozar Gligorić–Bobby Fischer, Yugoslavia 1959,[4] White can get his king in front of the pawn, but he does not have the opposition and is not on the sixth rank. Black must make sure that White does not get the opposition or get the king to the sixth rank:
- 1.. Kb8!
Any move by Black to the seventh rank loses because White can take the opposition and reach a key square. (The move 1..Kd8 allows the white king to reach the key square a6.) After 1..Kb8, Black draws by taking the opposition if the white king advances, e.g. 2.Kc5 Kc7! draws or 2.Kb5 Kb7! draws (Matanović 1982:19, 21), (Fischer 2008:86).
Guidelines[edit]
a | b | c | d | e | f | g | h |
8 | 8 | ||||||
7 | 7 | ||||||
6 | 6 | ||||||
5 | 5 | ||||||
4 | 4 | ||||||
3 | 3 | ||||||
2 | 2 | ||||||
1 | 1 | ||||||
a | b | c | d | e | f | g | h |
White to move draws; Black to move loses.
Edmar Mednis gave these guidelines:
- The rook pawn is the worst pawn to have. The defending king draws if it can get in front of the pawn or reach the square diagonally adjacent to the promotion square.
- For other pawns, the position on the right is the key position. White to move draws; Black to move loses (rule 2, parts b and c above).
- It is always an advantage to have the opposition.
- If the attacking king is on the sixth rank in front of the pawn it always wins (rule 2, parts a and c).
- It is always an advantage to have the king in front of its pawn. Otherwise, the key is whether or not the king can get in front of the pawn in an advantageous position.
- If the attacking king is on the third, fourth, or fifth rank in front of the pawn he wins if he has the opposition (rule 2, parts a and b).
- A king and doubled pawns (except rook pawns) win in all normal circumstances. The extra pawn is used only to make a tempo move to gain the opposition (which it can not do if the pawns are on adjacent ranks)(Mednis 1978:253–69).
Examples[edit]
a | b | c | d | e | f | g | h |
8 | 8 | ||||||
7 | 7 | ||||||
6 | 6 | ||||||
5 | 5 | ||||||
4 | 4 | ||||||
3 | 3 | ||||||
2 | 2 | ||||||
1 | 1 | ||||||
a | b | c | d | e | f | g | h |
Black to move, White wins by moving to a key square
With Black to move, White wins by first occupying a key square and then by getting two of the conditions above:
- 1.. Kb5 2. Kd4 (key square) 2.. Kc6 3. Kc4 (opposition) 3.. Kb6 4. Kd5 (turning maneuver) 4.. Kc7 5. Kc5 (opposition) 5.. Kd7 6. Kb6
The white king is on the sixth rank (condition c) ahead of the pawn (condition a) and White can advance the pawn.
If White is to move, Black draws:
- 1. Kb3 Kb5 (opposition) 2. c4+ Kc5 3. Kc3 Kc6
Alternatives 3..Kd6 and 3..Kb6 also draw.
- 4. Kd4 Kd6 5. c5+ Kd7 6. Kd5 Kc7 7. c6 Kc8!
If 7..Kd8 then 8.Kd6, taking the opposition, wins.
- 8. Kd6 Kd8!
and Black draws (Averbakh 1993:36–37).
Kamsky vs. Kramnik[edit]
a | b | c | d | e | f | g | h |
8 | 8 | ||||||
7 | 7 | ||||||
6 | 6 | ||||||
5 | 5 | ||||||
4 | 4 | ||||||
3 | 3 | ||||||
2 | 2 | ||||||
1 | 1 | ||||||
a | b | c | d | e | f | g | h |
Position after 125.Kxc6
This position from Gata Kamsky–Vladimir Kramnik, Nice 2009, was reached after the exchange of rooks in a rook and pawn versus rook endgame. Black draws easily:[5]
- 125.. Ke7
Ke8 also draws.
- 126. Kd5 Ke8 127. Kd6 Kd8
Taking the opposition.
- 128. e7+ Ke8 129. Ke6stalemate (Nunn 2010:92).
See also[edit]
References[edit]
- ^'Panno vs. Najdorf, Buenos Aires 1968'. Chessgames.com.
- ^'Barcza vs. Fischer, Zurich 1959'. Chessgames.com.
- ^'Maróczy vs. Marshall, Monte Carlo 1903'. Chessgames.com.
- ^'Gligorić vs. Fischer, Bled-Zagreb-Belgrade Candidates (1959)'. Chessgames.com.
- ^'Kamsky vs. Kramnik, Nice 2009, Amber Tournament (Blindfold)'. Chessgames.com.
Bibliography
- Averbakh, Yuri (1993), Chess Endgames: Essential Knowledge, Cadogan, ISBN978-1-85744-022-5
- Dvoretsky, Mark (2011), Dvoretsky's Endgame Manual (3rd ed.), Russell Enterprises, ISBN978-1-936490-13-4
- Fine, Reuben; Benko, Pal (2003) [1941], Basic Chess Endings (revised ed.), McKay, ISBN0-8129-3493-8
- Fischer, Bobby (2008) [1969], My 60 Memorable Games, Batsford, ISBN978-1-906388-30-0
- Fishbein, Alexander (1993), King and Pawn Endings, American Chess Promotions, ISBN0-939298-39-2
- Flear, Glenn (2004), Starting Out: Pawn Endings, Everyman Chess, ISBN1-85744-362-4
- Griffiths, P.C. (1976), The Endgame: in modern theory and practice, G. Bell & Sons, ISBN0-7135-1953-3
- Hawkins, Jonathan (2012), Amateur to IM: Proven Ideas and Training Methods, Mongoose, ISBN978-1-936277-40-7
- Lasker, Edward (1915), Chess Strategy (2nd ed.)
- Levy, David; Newborn, Monty (1991), How Computers Play Chess, Computer Science Press, ISBN0-7167-8121-2
- Makarov, Marat (2007), The Endgame, Chess Stars, ISBN978-954-8782-63-0
- Matanović, Aleksandar (1982), Encyclopedia of Chess Endings, volume 1 (pawn endings), Chess Informant
- Mednis, Edmar (1978), Practical Endgame Lessons, McKay, ISBN0-67914-102-2
- Müller, Karsten; Lamprecht, Frank (2001), Fundamental Chess Endings, Gambit Publications, ISBN1-901983-53-6
- Müller, Karsten; Lamprecht, Frank (2007), Secrets of Pawn Endings, Gambit Publications, ISBN978-1-904600-88-6
- Nunn, John (2010), Nunn's Chess Endings, volume 2, Gambit Publications, ISBN978-1-906454-23-4
- Silman, Jeremy (2007), Silman's Complete Endgame Course: From Beginner to Master, Siles Press, ISBN1-890085-10-3
- Nunn, John (2009), Understanding Chess Endgames, Gambit Publications, ISBN1-906454-11-6
External links[edit]
King Vs Pawn Endgame
Retrieved from 'https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=King_and_pawn_versus_king_endgame&oldid=898816577'