KEMBAR78
Practical Endgame Play | PDF
Scribd
Upload
864 views544 pages

Practical Endgame Play

beyond the basic by everyman

Uploaded by

Alexandre Atlas
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as PDF or read online on Scribd
864 views544 pages

Practical Endgame Play

beyond the basic by everyman

Uploaded by

Alexandre Atlas
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as PDF or read online on Scribd
You are on page 1/ 544
Glenn Flear Practical Endgame Play - beyond the basics EVERYMAN CHESS Glenn Flear Practical Endgame Play - beyond the basics the definitive guide to the endgames that really matter EVERYMAN CHESS Gloucester Publishers plc www.everymanchess.com First published in 2007 by Gloucester Publishers plc (formerly Everyman Publishers plc), Northburgh House, 10 Northburgh Street, London EC1V OAT Copyright © 2007 Glenn Flear First published 2007 by Gloucester Publishers ple The right of Glenn Flear to be identified as the author of this work has been asserted in ac- cordance with the Copyrights, Designs and Patents Act 1988. Alll rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system or transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic, electrostatic, magnetic tape, photocopying, recording or otherwise, without prior permission of the publisher. British Library Cataloguing-in-Publication Data A catalogue record for this book is available from the British Library. ISBN 978 185744 555 8 Distributed in North America by The Globe Pequot Press, P.O Box 480, 246 Goose Lane, Guilford, CT 06437-0480. Alll other sales enquiries should be directed to Everyman Chess, Northburgh House, 10 Northburgh Street, London EC1V OAT tel: 020 7253 7887 fax: 020 7490 3708 email: info@everymanchess.com website: www.everymanchess.com Everyman is the registered trade mark of Random House Inc. and is used in this work under license from Random House Inc. EVERYMAN CHESS SERIES (formerly Cadogan Chess) Chief advisor: Byron Jacobs Commissioning editor: John Emms Assistant editor: Richard Palliser Typesetting and editing by First Rank Publishing, Brighton. Cover design by Horatio Monteverde. Printed and bound in America by Versa Press. webWwne 10 11 Bibliography Introduction Statistics Section 1: Clear Material Advantage Two Extra Pieces One Extra Piece Two Rooks versus Rook and Minor Piece Queen and Rook versus Queen and Minor Piece Rook and Minor Piece versus Two Minor Pieces Section 2: Only Minor Pieces Two Bishops versus Two Minor Pieces Other Double Minor Piece Combinations Section 3: Asymmetric Struggles Rook versus Two Minor Pieces Queen versus Rook and Knight Queen versus Rook and Bishop Queen versus Two Rooks 11 15 20 40 63 93 135 162 194 223 240 262 12 13 14 45 16 17 18 19 20 Section 4: Rook and Minor Pieces Rook and Bishop versus Rook and Knight Rook and Bishop versus Rook and opposite-coloured Bishop Rook and Bishop versus Rook and same-coloured Bishop Rook and Knight versus Rook and Knight Section 5: Heavyweight Struggles Two Rooks versus Two Rooks Queen and Bishop versus Queen and Knight Queen and Knight versus Queen and Knight Queen and Bishop versus Queen and Bishop Queen and Rook versus Queen and Rook Index of Players Glossary of Special Terms 285 326 345 370 396 422 455 471 500 535 544 Bibliography Books A Pocket Guide to Chess Endgames, Hooper (Bell 1970 & Batsford 1986) Basic Chess Endgames, Fine (Tartan/Bell, 1974 edition) Batsford Chess Endings, Speelman, Tisdall & Wade (Batsford 1993) Botvinnik’s Best Games, Botvinnik (Batsford 1972) Dvoretsky’s Chess Endings, Dvoretsky (Russell Enterprises 2003) Encyclopaedia of Chess Endings (Sahovski Informator 1982-93) Fundamental Chess Endings, Miiller & Lamprecht (Gambit 2001) Informators 1-97 (Sahovski Informator 1966-2007) Practical Rook Endings, Mednis (Chess Enterprises 1982) Secrets of Chess Endgame Strategy, Lars Bo Hansen (Gambit 2006) Secrets of Pawnless Endings, Nunn Batsford 1994) Secrets of Minor-Piece Endings, Nunn (Batsford 1995) The Unknown Capablanca, Hooper & Brandreth (Batsford 1975) The Games of Robert James Fischer, Wade & O'Connell (Batsford 1972) Think Like a Grandmaster, Kotov (Batsford 1971) Winning Chess Endgames, Kosten (Crowood 1987) Software and Databases ChessBase 9 Fritz 8 Mega Database 2005 The Week in Chess Introduction In this book I aim to highlight the lessons to be learnt from master play in positions with lim- ited material. Why did I write this book? For over thirty years I have been actively involved in playing tournaments and league games, my own pleasure from chess coming mainly from the practical — or, if you prefer, competitive — angle. So, although I have the greatest respect for those authors who empha- size the beautiful or artistic side of the game, I tend to write with other tournament competi- tors in mind. I've always enjoyed positions with simplified material. We tend to label these ‘end- games’, although this commonly used term doesn’t mean the same thing to everyone, as you'll see below! I’m not alone in advising students that studying your own games is impor- tant for all phases of the game. But for simplified positions, just as with openings, it's instruc- tive to compare how we have performed with analogous positions from master games. Now if we've had a rook ending or perhaps bishop vs knight, it’s not such a difficult task to find similar positions in a decent endgame book. Positions with one piece each or less are very well covered in chess literature. But those with a little more material are not. In fact it can be very frustrating trying to find any sort of book that covers rook and minor piece vs rook and minor piece. Do you have any in your collection? According to some statistics that I’ve outlined below, more than 15% of all games (almost 20% in mine!) reach this type of position, and yet there is minimal information available for the enthusiastic student. So I’m aiming to fill a gap by writing about those pseudo-endgames which other books neglect. What is an ‘endgame’ anyway? And what on earth is a ‘nuckie’? The word ‘endgame’ is widely used and generally implies the final phase of the game (how- ever long!), assuming that there already has been significant simplification. If we had to de- fine the word more rigorously in terms of material then opinions vary. Some specialists con- sider all queenless positions to be endgames, others those where both sides have limited ma- terial, for instance less than queen and rook. Practical Endgame Play Ihave found it convenient to consider positions with only one piece or less per player as endgames and those with a couple of pieces each by an alternative name. As I don’t know of a term for these pseudo-endgames I've decided to invent one myself! So here are my defini- tions: In this book the term an ‘endgame’ is a position with a maximum of one piece each. A ‘NQE’ (for ‘Not Quite an Endgame’, pronounced ‘nuckie’) is a posi- tion with more material than in an endgame but with a maximum of two pieces each. So rook vs queen would be considered as an endgame, whereas rook and bishop vs rook and knight would be a ‘nuckie’; rook and bishop vs rook also comes into the latter category. I’ve decided to concentrate my efforts on these so-called NQEs. So Ill be covering a var- ied selection such as double rook endings, and two bishops vs knight and bishop, and even queen and rook each, and many other combinations of material in the following twenty chapters. Although endgame principles (such as pushing passed pawns) and positional ones (such as weak squares or a space advantage) obviously come into consideration, they are often complicated by the presence of supplementary pieces. So play is often sharper and more messy than in pure endgames. Dynamic factors are frequently the important ones. If there are heavy pieces on the board, they can be used to target vulnerable kings, as in the middlegame. So any problems with either king are often fundamental to the outcome of the struggle. The side that is objectively weaker has more opportunity to exploit king insecurity to threaten counterplay and thus frustrate the stronger side's plans. The piece power on the board can give rise to some rich possibilities. NQEs are more than just basic endgames in the making, they can also be thought of as late-middlegames. Theory or Practice? Many endgame books consist mainly of studies or established theory and only a modest number of so-called practical examples. Studies are aimed at being aesthetic and surprising, and can help develop theory, which is an attempt to prove best play and the ultimate result. Virtually all of this book consists of examples taken from actual games. There is much less theory anyway in the NQE phase of the game than in actual endgames, and on many occa- sions we can’t be sure of best play or even the logical result. We can, however, see what techniques have been employed in practice by players who are striving to maximize the po- tential of their position. What are the key factors in such sim 'd positions? I've made a list from my own experience of those factors that really have to be taken into account in general in NQEs. Naturally each chapter will highlight the specifics. Introduction 1. Are there chances for a mating attack? Or failing that, a perpetual? 2. Is any material advantage compensated for by positional or tactical factors? Or if not, is it just a trivial win? 3. Are the kings liabilities or assets? 4. Is simplification into an endgame desirable or likely? 5. What are the main characteristics of the pawn structure? Is it in the interests of either player to change this structure? How significant are any passed pawns? 6. Are any of the pieces of either side particularly well placed or badly placed? 7. Whatever the plan decided upon, is there any rush? Is stopping the oppo- nent's potential counter-chances the main priority? 8. Should the defender stay passive or aim to activate? 9. How does the clock situation affect matters? 10. How will the players want to make their game more harmonious? The ninth and penultimate point is becoming more and more relevant in the modern, practical world of chess. Time limits have accelerated and games are much shorter these days. Many players are now finding themselves in permanent time trouble from about move 30 until the end of the game. There is often no respite at move 40, so practical decisions need to be made quickly and without panicking, So there is certainly truth in the assertion that the need to study NQEs is more important than ever. The tenth general principle also requires some thought. What is harmony? It is possible that your immediate thought, when seeing the word ‘harmony’, is of a piece of classical music played by an orchestra, where each musician plays his part in creating the overall effect - which is hopefully an aesthetically pleasing sound! If just one musician gets it wrong then the resulting sound quality is degraded. The word harmony is used in chess as well. If all your pieces, including the king (of course!), and pawns are occupying ideal squares then your position is said to be harmonious. If there is one badly-placed fighting unit or something awry with the pawn structure then problems arise. In the middlegame we can sometimes get away with one underperformer, but after simplification a misplaced piece sticks out like a sore thumb. Aiming for harmony — or to put it another way, avoiding disharmony — is the tenth and perhaps most underestimated of the factors. Practical Endgame Play Tm certainly not the first author to emphasize this point. Here’s some advice offered by Alexander Kotov in his ground-breaking classic Think Like A Grandmaster (Batsford 1971): ‘Remember that in seeking the solution of concrete tasks by analysing variations you should never allow yourself to be carried away and lose sight of the need for a harmonious link between all your pieces. Take it as a rule once or twice to look at the position from a different point of view during the game. Ask yourself, are my pieces cooperating, or is there some disharmony in their ranks?’ Understanding chess harmony is an important skill that really needs emphasizing in NQEs. A question of technique? The old cliché! But what does it mean? Endgame technique can be thought of as logical play using endgame experience and theory. In this book, with more material on the board, technique also takes into account middlegame thinking and therefore has a wider scope, e.g. ‘attacking technique’ etc. How can the reader benefit from this book? As it’s rather a long book you may prefer to read it over time; for instance one chapter per week or perhaps revising an appropriate section when a particular NQE has cropped up in one of your own games, It can in addition be considered as a reference book. Whichever method applies best to you, I hope that by studying this book you will gain insight into the latter stages of a game of chess. You will then, hopefully, be able to apply your newly acquired erudition to practical NQEs and endgames of all sorts. From a personal point of view I'm convinced that I’ve learnt a great deal about the latter phases of the game. | also discovered that many analyses of even very strong players are of- ten flawed. I found many improvements myself and others with the help of a computer. I'm also sure that a close study of my variations by the reader will reveal further mistakes. I make no apology for being human, just think of these lapses as opportunities! Hunting for mistakes is another way in which we can develop our chess ability! Acknowledgements John Emms for his patience and inspiration. Jonathan Tait for his constructive criticism and diligent editorial work. Christine Flear for her moral support. Olivier Letreguilly for his enthusiasm. Glenn Flear Baillargues, France May 2007 10 ‘A good place to start is to ask the following question: What is the likelihood of getting various endings and NQEs in practical play? Apart from just innocent curiosity, discovering the relative probabilities of various NQEs occurring enabled me to know where to concentrate my efforts. If the book has relevance to practical players then it makes sense for the author to go into greater detail in the most common NQEs. I've used a database of my games from the last twenty years to compile the following ta- bles. I believe that, if the reader were to do the same with his own games or with a standard database, the percentages wouldn't be that much different. First of all I compared my results (GCF) with those of Miiller and Lamprecht (M&L from Fundamental Chess Endings, Gambit 2001) who measured a large database. NQE or ending GCF M&L Rook and minor piece each 19.56% 15.13% Rook endings 11.88% 8.45% Bishop vs knight endings 459% 3.29% King and pawn endings 2.49% 2.87% The percentages measure the probability of a material combination occurring in the course of a game. As you can see there are slight differences in the frequency, but the order of magnitude of our separate results are the same. These results can be interpreted as fol- lows: When I sit down to play a game of chess the chance of me obtaining a pure pawn ending is 2.49% or about 1 in 40. The 11.88% that I’ve measured for rook endings means roughly 1 in 8or9. My personal database (2331 games from 1986-2006) threw up the following figures for standard endgames: 41 Practical Endgame Play Rook endings 277 / 2331 games = 11.88% about 1in9 Bishop vs knight endings 107 = 459% about 1 in 22 Pawn endings 58 2.49% about 1 in 40 Queen endings 52 2.23% about 1 in 45, Knight endings 50 2.15% about 1 in 47 Bishop (same) endings 48 2.06% about 1 in 49 Bishop (opposite) endings 2 = 0.94% about 1 in 106 As I'm not covering any of these in this book (except where there is simplification from an NQE) you may wonder why I’m bothering to put these statistics in at all. If however, we compare these figures with those of the principle NQEs you will no doubt quickly grasp my point. Here is my personal Top 25 for NQEs 1 Bravo 948% or linll 2 Weve 5.15% or 1in19 3 B+@ v B48 (same colour) 446% or = 1in22 4° BOvee 103 442% or 1in23 5 Mehvine 95 4.08% or 1in25 6 WHR vWD 59 253% or 1in40 7 MRve 37 159% or =1in 63 8 mAvE 36 154% or = 1in 65 9 @+& v DR (same colour) 31 = 133% or 1in75 10= B+& v B+& (opposite colour) 28 1.20% or ‘1 in 83 10= WH) v WH 28 1.20% or ‘1 in 83 12 W+& v W+2 (same colour) 7 = 116% or 1in86 13 S+B VOR 24 = 1.038% or 1in97 14 Mev Eee 23 = 099% or in 100 15 Bevo 21 = 0.90% 16= Wi v WH 18 = 0.77% 16 RAV AHA 18 = 0.77% 18 WE vWD 16 = 0.69% 19 Sve 1 = 0.55% 20= W+& v W+2 (opposite colour) 12 = 051% 20= +8 v B+8 (opposite colour) 12 = 051% = Wee vW 10 = Less than 1 in 200 = Wve) 10 24 WH v W 9 d= BHD v 2+) 9 Such statistics can be affected by style; for instance, a tendency to play for an all-out at- tack or to agree quick draws. So I'm not claiming anything dramatic in the precise numbers, only that they represent a convenient measure of frequency. There are certain conclusions that can be drawn from these figures. The most striking one 12 Statistics is that the most common NQEs occur more often than standard endings, except for rook end- ings. So why aren’t they given as much coverage in chess publications? Or shall I put it another way... How much time and effort have you put into studying king and pawn endings (which occur once in 40 games) compared to that put into rook and bishop vs rook and knight (which occurs once every 11 games)? Here are some other results: 1. All forms of rook and minor piece for each player are common. 2. Queen and rook vs queen and rook occurs frequently. 3. So-called double rook endings are common, whereas double bishop endings and double knight endings are very rare. 4. Certain combinations were much rarer than I expected: rook us bishop and knight and both versions of queen vs rook and minor piece, for instance. 5. Ifaplayer has two minor pieces he is most likely to have one of each. I believe that the relative frequencies I've observed by examining my own games will hold more or less true for other players of any strength, with the possible exception of out- right beginners. Why don’t you compare the frequencies in your own games or in a standard database? You'll see that in the introductions to certain chapters I've done precisely this to illustrate the point. 13 Chapter One Two Extra Pieces We have to start somewhere! Once we learn as a beginner that mate ends the game it soon becomes clear that it’s important to grasp the technique to deliver some basic mates. The first couple of these are mating with queen and king vs king and, of course, achieving mate with tivo rooks and king vs king. 11 A pair of rooks Few of us would have any difficulty with the following moves: 1 Eg3 &d5 2 Hg5+ Se6 3 Hh6+ Sf7 4 Ha6 be7 5 g7+ 8 6 Hb7 de8 7 a8 mate The rooks are used on adjacent ranks to restrict the opposing king’s movements and then to push him back until he’s mated on the back rank. A rook on an open board naturally forms a ‘barrier’ which the oppos- ing king cannot cross. For instance, a rook on h4 stops a king on c5 going to any of the following squares: b4, c4 and d4. The fourth rank is a barrier to Black's king. White doesn’t need to use his own king, nor worry too much about stalemate, and visualizing the virtual barriers formed by rooks along ranks or files is not particularly strenuous. The next example is already more in- volved. 1.2 A pair of bishops (see following diagram) With a pair of bishops more thought is required. The two bishops need to be on adjacent diagonals to form a ‘barrier’. 1 2d6 e6 2 Rg3 If we look along the two diagonals a8-h1 15 Practical Endgame Play and b8-h2, we see that Black’s king is re- stricted and that he therefore has no hope of going to the other wing, ae 2...8f5 3 be3 Le6 If White now attempts to play 4 &g4+ Black could seek some temporary freedom with 4..@d5. So, unlike in the case with rooks, White needs to use his king to cover some potential escape squares before push- ing the defending king further back. 4bdq Sfs 5 eds &f6 6 Aga The moment has come to switch diago- nals. 6...08g5 7 2d7 bF6 8 Lh4+ Further limiting Black’s king. This move only makes sense as White’s king covers the e5-square. 8.27 White’s bishops now form a barrier along the c8-h3 and d8-h4 diagonals. 9 bes Hg6 10 Re8+ bg7 11 Le7 Black now only has five squares in which to manoeuvre. 11...@2h7 12 Sf6 The king is brought closer in order to help with the mate. 12...2h6 13 2f8+ Gh7 14 &f7 Black is restricted to two squares and White’s king comes as close as possible. Now the mate just requires the bishops to reposition themselves for the kill. should always verify that your opponent You has a legal reply until the moment that you are poised for the kill. When mate is close, remember to be wary of stalemate! 14...@h8 15 &h6 Gh7 16 &d2 Lh 17 2bs $h7 18 2d3+ Sh8 19 23 mate In the final position the g8-square is only covered by White's king. A further illustra- tion of the point that the help of White’s king is indispensable. Although this standard mate holds few secrets for the majority of readers I’ve em- phasized it for a good reason: two bishops and king vs king is the most straightforward mate in chess where all three pieces are required. A good example of real teamwork! The notorious Bishop, Knight and King versus King 1.3 The right corner The NQE of bishop, knight and king against bare king has a reputation of being tough, as even some strong players have failed to mate. However, learning the required tech- nique doesn’t take long and serves as an excellent example of teamwork. I always show this technique to my pupils. The sense of achievement that they feel when they have assimilated it is a great confidence builder, as well as an ideal foundation for 16 them to be aware of coordinating their pieces in more complicated NQEs. I first came across the above position when I was about 14-years-old in A Pocket Guide to Chess Endings by David Hooper. The first thing to know is that the mate can only occur in two of the corners, those with the same coloured square as the bishop (so the ‘right’ corners in order to be able to de- liver mate with a light-squared bishop are a8 and hi). In this example White has already cre- ated a ‘barrier’; ie. the squares d1, d2, d3, €3, e4, €5 and £5 are covered by the minor pieces and his king stops Black from heading for the ‘wrong’ corner on h8. 126 Black’s king must now retreat and then White can tighten the noose. 1.24 2 Gh6 Sea 3 Qc2 Sq Or3..2h4 4 Odl g35 Sg5 etc. 4chs bg3 5 gs hfs 6 hfs Here 6 &d1+?! would be a mistake in view of 6..%e4. 6...8e2 If 6...8g3, then 7 &d1 tightens the screw. 7 Sf4 ber 8 he3 Sf1 9 Adi Sg2 10 Sq f2 11 2g4 be1 12 Le; Sf1 So far White has only used the knight to cover the d2 and e3 squares; now it comes across to cover f2 and g3. 13 Dd2+ Sg2 Alternatively, 13...@e1 transposes after 14.De4 Sf1 15 kd2. 14 Deq Sf1 15 &d2 (see following diagram) Now there is another barrier with Black restricted to five corner squares. 15...d2g2 16 Bez gi 17 Bh3 By switching to this diagonal Black now only has three squares left. 17...2h2 18 2f1 gi 19 Df6 Not just a ‘pass’ move to oblige Black to retreat; White prepares the mate. Two Extra Pieces 19...2h2 20 Sf2 &h1 21 Sg2+ eh2 22 Aga mate So once the defending king is limited to a zone around a ‘right’ corner, the attacking side needs to gradually tighten the noose whilst being careful not to allow his prey to escape. gl S&S “7 a a 7 erat ei a “? In practice the defending king will often have the opportunity to seek refuge in a ‘wrong’ (where there is no chance of mate!) corner. So shepherding the opposing king to a ‘right’ corner is necessary and perhaps the most important technique of all. The manoeuvre that is performed in the following example by White's knight is akin 17 Practical Endgame Play to a dance routine (i.e. the knight moves from e7 to g6-e5-g4-e3-g2). It may help to mentally draw a ‘W’ (from g6 until g2) and remember this technique as the W-manoeuvre. 1 Dg6+ &h7 2.2d5 A temporizing move, waiting for Black’s king to move to h6, its only square. 2..8h6 3 &g8 PhS 4 Des! After 4 £5 &h6 the only way to cover g7 is by 5 &f6. There are two directions for Black to go: the ‘run for freedom’ defence or the ‘docile’ defence. Let’s start with the simplest: The Docile Defence 4... 2h6 5 Dgat Bhs 6 Sf5 Lh4 7 Sf4 Shs 8 27+ Sh4 9 De3 Lh3 Now White ‘passes’ again to get Black to commit himself. 10 2e8 &ha Black quickly finds himself in the corner after 10...@h2 11 &2d7 wg] 12 &g3 &hi 13 (2 bh2 14 Afl+ kh 15 2c6 mate. 11 Dgat Sh3 12 SF3 Gh2 13 Sf2 Lh3 14 &d7+ Gh2 Black has two squares, so mate is nigh. 15 De3 Gh1 16 Le6 Another pass move in order to perform the final moves with check and thus avoid- ing any risk of stalemate. 16...2h2 17 Dfa+ Lh1 18 2d5 mate The Run for Freedom Defence 4.4 This move gives the impression that Black has escaped and is probably why some players fail to organize a mate in the allotted 50 moves. However, although Black is allowed to escape from his cell, he doesn’t make it out of the prison grounds... 5 Ss bg3 White doesn’t look as if he will be able to stop the black king reaching open ground, but he can! 6 Dgal S37 Aca! atatate ft A timely use of a barrier. White covers e2 with his bishop, e3 and {2 with his knight, and f4 with his king. 7...22g3 8 Rd5 Further restriction. Black must (reluc- tantly) go back to the h-file. 8...Gh4 9 SF4 Shs 10 27+ Sh4 11 Dez ..and now play continues as in the ‘doc- ile’ defence. 11...2h3 12 2e8 hg 13.Dg2+ Gh3 14 SF3 h2 15 Sf2 Gh3 16 2d7+ Sh2 17 Dez In order to complete the mating net the knight will be required to cover the remain- ing dark square h2. 17...@h1 18 Le6 Not forgetting to temporize if necessary! 18...2h2 19 Dfa+ Lh1 20 2d5 mate Despite the complication of Black ‘almost escaping’, note the squares visited by 18 White's knight. Yes, exactly the same as in the ‘docile’ case! Remembering the W- manoeuvre helps us in the process of ‘memorizing’ the whole technique. So a typical game would involve Black resisting being pushed, and then heading for the ‘wrong’ corner from which it takes 20 moves or so to mate. Nevertheless, by un- derstanding exactly what one needs to do and applying certain techniques and ma- noeuvres (that we hopefully now under- stand!), then from any starting position it should be possible to mate in less than 50 moves. The use of the white king, barriers and the occasional pass move are all typical in other endgames and NQEs. A few years ago, I had the task of de- fending against bishop and knight with my bare king in a tournament game where my 2250 opponent only had 15 minutes left. I naively thought that I would have reason- able drawing chances but he rattled off the moves and mated me in no more than five minutes! I was quite impressed with his technique and told him so, but he did admit to having had this same ‘ending’ only a few weeks previous to our game and so knew it well. After studying this technique a couple of times I'm sure that even much lower-ranked players should be able to mate in only five minutes. I know this to be a fact, as one of my students thanked me: when they had this NQE in a tournament game, they had no problems to mate. Two Extra Pieces So test yourself on your friends; it'll be fun! 15 C.Holland-G.Flear Uppingham 1987 oma maa me a a Vi aM. ate - 7 Y OG a "@ In this practical example I missed my chance. 71.045? A time-trouble miscalculation. Instead 71...\h5+! wins, e.g, 72 &g6 (or 72 kgs Axi6t 73 bg7 cb 74 h7 Dgd+) 72... xf6 73 h7 4d5! (now this is the right square, and this is clearly better than 73... Ag4 74 &f5) 74 {7 &c3 and Black has gained time to place his bishop out of range. After 75 &g8 Df6+ 76 keg? Dga+ 77 dg8 Dh6+ 78 f8 kc6 79 e7 &d5 Black will calmly walk over and pick off the h-pawn. Then I would have had the chance to test my own technique with bishop, knight and king vs bare king. 727 &xf6+ 73 bes and Black loses a piece. 19 Chapter Two One Extra Piece The advantage of an extra piece is significant in most positions. In the middlegame even with many pieces on the board, if one player has a piece more the odds are that he will expect to win, unless his opponent has some important compensation such as a strong attack or sev- eral pawns. In the majority of endgames and NQEs this is also the case, but there are special circum- stances which may complicate the stronger side’s task of converting his material advantage. These can be summarized as: 1, The stronger side has no pawns left. The weaker side has some good pawns as at least partial compensation. 3. The weaker side can construct a defensive shell, which in chess we describe as a fortress. 4, The extra piece is handicapped in some way, an example being the presence of a wrong rook’s pawn. v It’s important to know that the ending of king, bishop and rook’s pawn vs bare king isn’t al- ways winning. If the bishop doesn’t control the queening square and the defending king can make it to that corner then it’s only a draw. Throughout this book cases where the bishop doesn’t control the queening square of a rook’s pawn will be known as an example of the “wrong rook’s pawn’ (WRP), as opposed to the ‘right rook’s pawn’ (RRP) when the bishop controls the relevant corner square. In cases where the stronger side has no remaining pawns and any of the defender’s pawns are weak and virtually irrelevant, then we can make some conclusions about various NQEs: rook + bishop us rook commonplace and tricky to defend rook + knight vs rook fairly common but much easier to defend queen + bishop vs queen rare and generally drawn queen + knight vs queen rare and generally drawn two minor pieces vs one drawish (except for 2+ v 4 - see Chapter Six). 20 One Extra Piece I've decided to limit my efforts to those piece configurations that have some practical relevance, i.e. where both players have a rook and one player has an additional minor piece. The NQE of rook and bishop vs rook is notoriously difficult to defend, but in most cases should be a book draw. This is one of those fundamental technical positions that should be mastered by anyone who consider themselves to be a serious chess player. As it occurs so frequently, some book work now may earn a player many a half-point throughout their fu- ture career. In comparison, rook and knight vs rook is rarer and not that dangerous if the defender has plenty of time. The theory is less important in this case, common sense often being enough to save the day. The following example from recent practice is fairly typical Rook and Knight versus Rook 2.21 $.Volkov-M.Bartel Port Erin 2006 Black’s king is already restricted to the edge, but despite White’s valiant efforts he can’t win. 79...He3+ 80 SF5 Zf3+ 81 Df4 Ufa 82 Sgs Hgi+ 83 of6 Bf1 84 Ha7+ he 85 Sts Bg 86 Ha2 Efi 87 Sg2 Dh7 The defensive technique consists of checking or pinning the minor piece and keeping one’s king as far away from the op- posing king as possible. 88 Eg4 Hf2 89 Sf6 Hf1 90 &f7 Lh6 91 Hg6+ @h7 92 Bf6 (see following diagram) 92...Haa! Y Y a 6 a Switching to side checks to upset White’s mating intentions. Instead, the passive 92...h1? allows White a free hand in con- structing a mating net: 93 De6 Hh5 94 Af8+ Bh8 95 Sg6 Eh2 96 Deb Hg2+ 97 G£7 (but not 97 2g5? &g8 98 Hab $8 99 Zeb Eg3 and Black escapes... for now!) 97...&h2 98 Dg5 Bhi 99 &f8 Bh2 100 Bg6 Hf2+ 101 Ae7+ Lh7 102 Bh6 mate. 93 Hfs5 Ha7+ 94 &f6 Ha6+ 95 De6 Lh6 96 Bbs After 96 Hf Black plays 96...h5. 96...Ha1 97 Hb4 Bf1+ 98 Df4 Lh7 99 Sf5 g7 100 Hb7+ 2h6 101 Ha7 Ef2 102 Ma1 £g7 103 de5 Hb2 104 De6+ Sf7 105 Ha7+ g6 106 Kg7+ Lh6 107 Xgi He2+ 108 &F5 Hf2+ 109 Af4 Sh7 110 e5 Lh6 111 Seq Ha2 112 Dds Bf2 113 Ses Hert 114 Sf5 Hf2+ 115 Se6 Sh5 116 e5 Hert 117 Sf6 21 Practical Endgame Play Hf2+ 118 Le6 He2+ 119 Sf5 Rf2+ 120 Seq Sho 121 Ses He2+ 122 Hf6 Hf2+ 123 de7 Bhs 124 Seb Hers 125 SF5 Hf2+ 126 Afar $h6 127 Bg4 Bf1 128 Sf6 Lh7 129 Eha+ Or if 129 £7 then 129...<@2hél. 129...2g8 130 de7 &g7 a-%2 7 Ba oe 2 —— a zo -— Ay Here the correct defence is to move the king away from the mating set-up with 1...2c8!, whereas defending by coming to the c-file with... 1...8ea? .uloses! Let’s see why. We follow a study by Centurini... 2 Hd3! Black is now restricted to playing his rook on the c-file as his king dare not move. 2..Hc2 3 di Be4 4 ha Now we see why the rook was invited to — the attempt to escape with 4...c8? is thwarted by 5 Ad6+. 4..He2 Black therefore has to move his rook. White has thus managed to gain time to get his rook to a more flexible square. 5 Ada! b2+ Here 5...8c4 fails to 6 Bh8+ Bc8 7 Ac6+. 6 Sc6 Sas The only move to resist as 6...b4 loses to 7 Bh8+ &a7 8 DAbS+ Lab 9 Ha8 mate. The black rook is now stuck to the b-file in order to meet a check on the h-file with --Hb8. 7 Zh3 Again White temporizes in order to oblige Black’s rook to go to an inferior square. 7..2b1 8 Zh2 Hb4 9 Abs Hc4+ 10 db6 SB Or here if 10...c8, then 11 Ac7+ b8 12 ®Dab+ a8 13 a2! and mate follows: 13...2h8 14 2c7+ b8 15 Ha8 mate. 11 Dd6 Hb4+ 12 dc6 Now it becomes clear why White’s rook is better on the h-file than on the d-file — it isn’t blocked by the knight. The black rook is worse placed on b4 (than on b2, for instance) as it is unable to give any annoying checks. 12...a8 13 Hh8+ Hb8 14 Ac8! 1-0 Black is mated. 2.3 J.Piket-G.Flear French League 2002 (see following diagram) Although Black’s king is confined to the back rank, he isn’t in any serious danger as White has to spend time and energy to re- lease his own. 22 One Extra Piece 49..@e8 50 Af4 Hd2 51 ofa dd8 52 Ba7 &c8 53 Bel Hb2 54 De2 &bs 55 He7 kes 56 Sf2 Xb3 57 Ad4 Hd3 58 Afs Hb3 59 LF7 2d3 60 De3 Raz 61 SF3 Bag 62 Afs Lbs 63 Ad6 Hb4 64 He3 Ebb 65 Aca Rb7 Played in order to release the king from the back rank. As a general rule once a king has escaped from the edge of the board it’s not that easy for the attacking side to push it back again. 66 Hf8+ dc7 67 d4 Hbs 68 Hf7+ &c6 69 Bf6+ &d7 70 Hd6+ Ye7 71 Ha6 Bhs 72 Ae3 d7 73 Ads Bhi Va-Y2 White gave up trying to win. In positions where both sides have pawns and where the weaker side has dan- gerous passed pawns there can obviously be technical problems. 2.4 G.Flear-D.Norwood British Championship, Plymouth 1989 (see following diagram) Here Black’s pawns are annoying rather than dangerous, but these, in conjunction with Black’s active king and White's fragile pawns, enable Black to escape with a draw. Vi, 4,0 32..Hb8 33 Dc3 dq 34 Dbs+ Lxc4 35 Dd6+ ked3 36 Dxf7 c4 37 Des+ Not 37 xg5? because of 37...2g8. 37..&¢3 38 Ba3+ bg 39 He3 ZaB 40 He2 fs 41 Kc2 c3 42 &g2 He8 43 DAd3+ &c4 44 Df2 Bd8 45 Sf3 gat! 46 Lez Capturing the g-pawn is no better: 46 xg £3, or 46 dxgs Bd2 47 Bxd2 cxd2 48 213 &b4. 46...Hd2! 47 Zxd2 cxd2 48 &xd2 g3 49 Dh3 Yee Black achieves a draw because his king heads for the a-pawn. Although White can both defend and advance his pawn, the knight cannot participate and a draw results. If White had stubbornly played on a plausible continuation could have been 49...

You might also like