- 37_N endgames
|
<The rhythm of the Knight> Simply 'Knight endgames'. Did you expect a long explanation ??? Keep on dreaming! ,....,
,::::::<
,::/^\"``.
,::/, ` e`.
,::; | '.
,::| \___,-. c)
;::| \ '-'
;::| \
;::| _.=`\
`;:|.=` _.=`\
'|_.=` __\
`\_..==`` /
.'.___.-'.
/ \
('--......--')
/'--......--'\
`"--......--"`
-- Since only a very few of you have probably ever been confronted with such a situation before, being at a complete loss in most cases, here is another extremely superfluous <Knight endgames> Collection that won't help you anyway. -- :D and < Knight endgames. Probably random pick-> Lagno vs Z Peng, 2011 ♘♘♘♘♘♘♘♘♘♘♘♘♘♘♘♘♘♘♘♘♘♘♘♘♘♘♘♘♘♘♘♘♘-♘
o.k., upon popular demand, here you are:
Knight endings are usually considered to be the closest to king and pawn endings, but the presence of knights still alters the position. The main characteristics of such endings are: < 1. The knight's short range renders outside passed pawns especially strong.< 2. Knights hate rooks' pawns! Knights are quite clumsy when fighting against passed pawns in general, but they are especially poor against a rook's pawn. This is because the edge of the board seriously restricts the knight's agility in a way that it does not always do to other pieces, certainly not
to the same extent.
< 3. The knight is not able to lose a tempo by itself. This is often an important factor, and means that if some form of Zugzwang position arises, only the kings can use triangulation to lose a tempo and transfer the move.< 4. As in many endings, king activity is a big factor in knight endings, as is space generally.< 5. Finally, because of the knight's clumsiness in fighting against a passed pawn, a knight sacrifice, to deflect its opposite number and set a passed pawn decisively in motion, is often a common feature of such endings.> > > > >
|
|
320 games, 1859-2018 - 38_NN
|
<This is the rhythm of the Knights> Kind of funny to follow these <feisty ponies> ... ,....,
,::::::<
,::/^\"``.
,::/, ` e`.
,::; | '.
,::| \___,-. c)
;::| \ '-'
;::| \
;::| _.=`\
`;:|.=` _.=`\
'|_.=` __\
`\_..==`` /
.'.___.-'.
/ \
('--......--')
/'--......--'\
`"--......--"`
,....,
,::::::<
,::/^\"``.
,::/, ` e`.
,::; | '.
,::| \___,-. c)
;::| \ '-'
;::| \
;::| _.=`\
`;:|.=` _.=`\
'|_.=` __\
`\_..==`` /
.'.___.-'.
/ \
('--......--')
/'--......--'\
`"--......--"`
“If I paint a wild horse, you might not see the horse… but surely you will see the wildness!” Pablo Picasso
http://kevinspraggettonchess.files....
|
|
40 games, 1854-2016 - 40a_R+B:R+N (the little inequality) II
|
< What difference does it make ? > " This is by far the most common NQE, with 8.8% of all 2600+ encounters involving this particular material imbalance. It's therefore evident that, as it's so relevant to practical play, it's
an area a serious player would be wise to study. The fact that the properties of a bishop differ from those of a knight lends itself to a number of generalities concerning the relative strength of these pieces. If we take an empty chessboard
and place a bishop and a knight randomly in the central arena, we notice that the bishop can have as many as 13 possible moves whereas a knight can at best only have eight. The logical deduction would be that the bishop is potentially a better piece, and it's true that most GMs, if given the choice, will take the bishop. As we know, however, there are a number of positions where a knight can at least hold its own, so chess commentators have developed a consensus view of the relative merits of the minor pieces in different types of position: 1 . A bishop is generally stronger than a knight when the position is open, if the pawns are broken, or play is on both flanks. 2. A knight is often better than a bishop in fairly closed positions, if play is on a limited front, or if the bishop is restricted by its own pawns. If we tum our attention to the main subject of this chapter, in which each side has a rook as well as a minor piece, then a common view in books is that rook and bishop are worth more than rook and knight. Having surveyed many examples of this NQE I'm not sure that I agree. The broad arguments that I've mentioned above are frequently overturned, for instance by a slight alteration in the pawn structure, a better-placed king or by several other factors." Glenn Flear, Practical Endgame Play beyond the basics (chapter 12) = ♖ ♗ = ♖ ♘ = ♖ ♗ = ♖ ♘ = ♖ ♗ = ♖ ♘ = ♖ ♗ = ♖ ♘ = ♖ ♗ = ♖ ♘ = ♖ ♗ = ♖ ♘ = "In general the line-up of rook plus bishop is rather stronger than rook and knight <to a large extent this depends on structure>, but a few grandmasters for example Evgeny Sveshnikov, think the reserve. Rook and knight is stronger when there are <fixed weaknesses> or, for example, when there are <doubled pawns>." Alexander Beliavsky + Adrian Mikhalchishin in <Winning Endgame Strategy> = ♖ ♗ = ♖ ♘ = ♖ ♗ = ♖ ♘ = ♖ ♗ = ♖ ♘ = ♖ ♗ = ♖ ♘ = ♖ ♗ = ♖ ♘ = ♖ ♗ = ♖ ♘ = Müller/Lamprecht say that 15% of all games reach an ending of rook and minor piece vs rook and minor piece, so that you can expect to get such one in every tournament. Their statistics, with relative percentage frequencies, rounded: <♖♗ vs ♖♘ (45%)>
♖♗ vs ♖♗ (22%) some coloured ♗
♖♗ vs ♖♗ (13%) opp. coloured ♗
♖♘ vs ♖♘ (20%).
= ♖ ♗ = ♖ ♘ = ♖ ♗ = ♖ ♘ = ♖ ♗ = ♖ ♘ = ♖ ♗ = ♖ ♘ = ♖ ♗ = ♖ ♘ = ♖ ♗ = ♖ ♘ = educational video http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iQum... Karpov's ensuing technique is absolutely brilliant, patiently massaging black's pawn weaknesses until he senses the critical moment to sacrifice his queenside pawns to form a potentially winning mating net around black's king on the kingside. Karpov's positional pressure and subsequent technical conversion in this game is extremely instructional as he wears down Kramnik's defense with a long series of threats to finish the game with a devastating tactical sequence.
|
|
111 games, 1920-2022 - 41_R+N - TActical TAngos
|
Müller/Lamprecht say that 15% of all games reach an ending of rook and minor piece vs rook and minor piece, so that you can expect to get such one in every tournament. Their statistics, with relative percentage frequencies, rounded: ♖♗ vs ♖♘ (45%)
♖♗ vs ♖♗ (22%) same coloured ♗
♖♗ vs ♖♗ (13%) opp. coloured ♗
<♖♘ vs ♖♘ (20%)> external lectures: http://roman-chess.blogspot.de/2012... Christopher Lutz in "Endspieltraining für die Praxis" sagt: <Die Kombination von ♖+♘ ist taktisch äußerst kompliziert. Konkrete Varianten haben den Vorrang vor allgemeinen strategischen Überlegungen. Man beachte den hochtaktischen Verlauf von [C Lutz vs Huebner, 1994 <...>> "In endings with rook and knight against rook and knight a slight initiative usually weighs heavily" - GM Karsten Müller
|
|
388 games, 1896-2022 - 42_R+B (of same colour)
|
Müller/Lamprecht say that 15% of all games reach an ending of rook and minor piece vs rook and minor piece, so that you can expect to get such one in every tournament. Their statistics, with relative percentage frequencies, rounded: ♖♗ vs ♖♘ (45%)
--> ♖♗ vs ♖♗ (22%) some coloured ♗
♖♗ vs ♖♗ (13%) opp. coloured ♗
♖♘ vs ♖♘ (20%)
< Könnte es sein, daß von hier eher Turmendspiele als Läuferendspiele entstehen?
< Welche (Bauern-)Konstellation läßt so welche Endspiele enstehen?
< Und warum ist das so?>>>
|
|
236 games, 1858-2022 - 43_R+B -opp.col. (wonderful attacking weapons)
|
Endings with Bishops of opposite color are of frequent occurence, yet the chess literature offers relatively few examples with a Rook added to each side. <The presence of the Rook often overcomes the drawish tendency that results from the Bishop's inability to command squares of more than one color. <The general strategic principles of endgame play are again to be observed. The player having <- the better centralized King,
- pawns controlling squares of the same color as the enemy Bishop, - and the more mobile Rook
< usually has winning chances.> > >>
-- CJS Purdy "On The Endgame"
= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =
<<Opposite colored Bishops> are wonderful attacking weapons in the middlegame (or in endgames with many pieces remaining) since one Bishop can attack something that the other can't defend.>
-- Jeremy Silman
= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =
Müller/Lamprecht say that 15% of all games reach an ending of rook and minor piece vs rook and minor piece, so that you can expect to get such one in every tournament. Their statistics, with relative percentage frequencies, rounded: ♖♗ vs ♖♘ (45%)
♖♗ vs ♖♗ (22%) same coloured ♗
--> ♖♗ vs ♖♗ (13%) opp. coloured ♗
♖♘ vs ♖♘ (20%)
<Bees of Opps and Rooks <>> external: http://www.ajedrezactual.com/fifi12... http://www.chess.com/article/view/c... D.♔ explains Carlsen vs Karjakin, 2013 here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MgT6... = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =
<T. Nissl> "Akademisches Monatsheft für Schach", 1910 
click for larger view #6
<1.Bh4 Rd1 2.Bg3 Rc1 3.Bf4 Rc2 4.Bg5 Bf3 5.Bd8+ Rc7 6.Bxc7#>
|
|
410 games, 1881-2022 - 46a_R:BB
|
<In the struggle between a rook and two minor pieces, there is generally equality if the side with the rook has 1 or 2 pawns more. Somewhat fewer pawns are required if both minor pieces are knights, and on the other hand 2 pawns are necessary if we are talking about the bishop pair. <The average value of the exchange (rook against a knight or a single bishop) is about 13/8 of a pawn. The advantage for the side with the rook is only 1 and 3/20 of a pawn if the opposing side has the bishop pair. If all the other minor pieces are still on the board, the value of the exchange drops by (1/4) of a pawn. If, on the other hand, the queens and a pair of rooks have been exchanged off, it goes up by somewhat more than (1/4) of a pawn. >> http://www.chessbase.com/newsdetail... Endgame Explorer: RPPP vs BBPPP
|
|
59 games, 1851-2019 - 46b_R:NN
|
<In the struggle between a rook and two minor pieces, there is generally equality if the side with the rook has 1 or 2 pawns more. Somewhat fewer pawns are required if both minor pieces are knights, and on the other hand 2 pawns are necessary if we are talking about the bishop pair. <The average value of the exchange (rook against a knight or a single bishop) is about 13/8 of a pawn. The advantage for the side with the rook is only 1 and 3/20 of a pawn if the opposing side has the bishop pair. If all the other minor pieces are still on the board, the value of the exchange drops by ¼ of a pawn. If, on the other hand, the queens and a pair of rooks have been exchanged off, it goes up by somewhat more than ¼ of a pawn. >> http://www.chessbase.com/newsdetail... ♖ : ♘-♘ | ♖ : ♘-♘ | ♖ : ♘-♘ | ♖ : ♘-♘ | ♖ : ♘-♘ | ♖ : ♘-♘ | [Event "WC25/final"]
[Site "ICCF"]
[Date "2009.12.10"]
[Round "-"]
[White "Finocchiaro, Fabio"]
[Black "Brooks, Dr. Ian S."]
[Result "1-0"]
[WhiteElo "2581"]
[BlackElo "2581"]
1.d4 Nf6 2.c4 e6 3.Nc3 Bb4 4.Qc2 O-O 5.a3 Bxc3+ 6.Qxc3 b6 7.Bg5 Bb7 8.e3 d6 9.Ne2 Nbd7 10.Qc2 c5 11.Rd1 Qe7 12.Nc3 cxd4 13.Rxd4 Rfd8 14.f3 d5 15.cxd5 exd5 16.Nxd5 Bxd5 17.Rxd5 Rac8 18.Qd2 Nc5 19.Bc4 b5 20.Rxd8+ Rxd8 21.Bd5 Rxd5 22.Qxd5 Nxd5 23.Bxe7 Nxe7 24.Ke2 Kf8 25.Rc1 Ne6 26.e4 Nf4+ 27.Kd2 Ne6 28.Ke3 Ke8 29.f4 a6 30.f5 Nd8
31.Kd4 Nb7 32.g4 Kd7 33.e5 Na5 34.Rd1 Kc7 35.Ke4 Nb3 36.Kf4 Nc6 37.h4 Nc5 38.b4 Nd7 39.Re1 Nf8 40.Re4 Kc8 41.Re2 Kd7 42.Re3 Kc7 43.h5 h6 44.g5 hxg5+ 45.Kxg5 Nxe5 46.Kf4 Nc6 47.Rg3 g6 48.h6 Ne7 49.fxg6 Nexg6+ 50.Kf5 Nh7 51.Rg1 Kd6 52.Rd1+ Ke7 53.Rd4 Nf6 54.Rd3 Nh7 55.Rd1 Ngf8 56.Ke5 Nf6 57.Rh1 Ng6+ 58.Kd4 Kf8 59.Rc1 Kg8 60.Rc6 Nd7 61.Rxa6 Ne7 62.Ke4 Nc8 63.Rc6 Ncb6 64.Rc3 Kh7 65.Rh3 Nf6+ 66.Ke5 Ne8 67.Kd4 Nd6 68.Kc5 Nbc4 69.Kc6 f6 70.Kd5 f5 71.Kc5 f4 72.Rf3 Kxh6 73.Rxf4 Kg6 74.Rf3 Kg5 75.Rd3 Ne4+ 76.Kxb5 Ne5 77.Rd4 Kf5 78.Kb6 Nc3 79.b5 Ke6 80.a4 Nf3 81.Rc4 Nd5+ 82.Ka7 Ne5 83.Rc1 Kd6 84.a5 Nc7 85.a6 Nd5 86.Kb7 1-0 ♖ : ♘-♘ | ♖ : ♘-♘ | ♖ : ♘-♘ | ♖ : ♘-♘ | ♖ : ♘-♘ | ♖ : ♘-♘ |
|
|
27 games, 1904-2025 - 46c_R:B+N
|
<In the struggle between a rook and two minor pieces, there is generally equality if the side with the rook has 1 or 2 pawns more. Somewhat fewer pawns are required if both minor pieces are knights, and on the other hand 2 pawns are necessary if we are talking about the bishop pair. <The average value of the exchange (rook against a knight or a single bishop) is about 13/8 of a pawn. The advantage for the side with the rook is only 1 and 3/20 of a pawn if the opposing side has the bishop pair. If all the other minor pieces are still on the board, the value of the exchange drops by ¼ of a pawn. If, on the other hand, the queens and a pair of rooks have been exchanged off, it goes up by somewhat more than ¼ of a pawn. >> http://www.chessbase.com/newsdetail... ♖ vs ♗♘ vs ♖ vs ♗♘ vs ♖ vs ♗♘ vs ♖ vs ♗♘ vs ♖ vs ♗♘ <Flear's Practical Endgame Play> starts examination with some impressive statistics. In his own database of games by players rated over 2600, Flear counts 164 games with rook versus bishop and knight, the most common case. < When pawns were equal, the rook won no games and lost 22;
< with a one-pawn edge the Rook won 9 and lost 12;
< with two pawns, the rook won 16 and lost 1. >>> That’s a tremendous shift in results based on the number of pawns on each side. What accounts for such a disparity? I dunno...let me take a flier
♖ vs ♗♘ vs ♖ vs ♗♘ vs ♖ vs ♗♘ vs ♖ vs ♗♘ vs ♖ vs ♗♘ check out <Rook vs. Two Minor Pieces> by Danish IM Esben Lund:
His comments on Karpov vs Kasparov, 1985 after <47... h5> 
click for larger view <Kasparov writes that this endgame is objectively a draw, but that White will have to play very carefully to obtain it.<>> Black should try to penetrate with his rook but must also do so without allowing too many pawn exchanges. However, I think White should, without too much difficulty, be able to prevent Black's rook from coming in. <48.Bc3 Rb8 49.Bb4 Rd8 50.Ke2 a3 51.Bc3 f6 52.Bb4 Kf7?!> "Kasparov criticizes this move as the king is poorly placed here later (the possibility of a knight check on d6 indirectly protects the pawn on f5). Instead he suggests 52...Kh7 with the idea that if White tries to use the same defensive idea as in the game, he will lose the kingside pawns and probably the game as well. 53.Bc3 Rb8 54.Bb4? (54.Nb4 Rb5 55.g4 Rb8 56.Kd3 Ra8 57.Na2 Ra4 58.Bb4 Kh6 59.Bd2+ and White has built up an impregnable fortress.) 54...Rb5! 55.g4 Rb8 56.Kd3 Rd8+ 57.Kc2 hxg4 58.hxg4 Rd4 59.Bxa3 Ra4 60.Kb3 Rxg4 61.Bc1 Rg3+ 62.Nc3 Rf3 63.Kc2 Rxf5 64.Kd3. Kasparov writes that it is difficult to assess this endgame as there is no relevant material to compare it with, but Black would probably have excellent practical winning chances. I managed to find one position from the World Championship match between Steinitz and Zukertort - see next game." (Esben Lund) <53.Nc3 Rb8 54.Na2 Rb5 55.g4 Rb8 56.Kd3 Rd8+ 57.Kc4 Rd1 58.Bxa3 Ra1 59.Kb3 Rh1 60.gxh5 Rxh3+ 61.Nc3 Rf3> The problem with the king on f7 becomes evident in the line 61...Rxh5 62.Ne4 Rxf5? 63.Nd6+. <62.Bc1 Rxf5 63.h6 g6 64.Ne4 Rh5 65.Bb2> 1/2 Lund continues with the Steinitz-Zukertort fragment and concludes that the rook and pawns most likely will win, and then returns to the position with after White's 64th move from Kasparovs analysis of <52...Kh7>. However, his conclusion is confusing. First he writes: <The conclusion is that, instead of <52...Kf7?!>, <52...Kh7> probably leads to a win for Black with correct play.<>>, and then a few lines further down: <To recap, the game would still be a draw with precise play, but after <52...Kh7> Karpov would have to use a different defensive plan than in the game, as indicated in the notes - see the line beginning with <54.Nb4!>.<>> Well, I admit, a lot of detail to pinpoint a minor mistake, since all in all Lund's lucid explanations are thorough and easy to understand. http://seagaard.dk/review/eng/bo_en...
|
|
109 games, 1850-2022 - 46d_R:B
151 games, 1896-2021 - 46e_R:B, all pawns on one wing
|
With three pawns on each side a fortress, as a rule, cannot be built. Salvation is possible only in exceptional cases: when the pawn structure of the stronger side has flaws. (Dworetsky) = ♖ = ♗ = ♖ = ♗ = ♖ = ♗ = ♖ = ♗ =
GM Robert Hübner analysed this type of endgame in his small book of 416 pages - [<Twenty-five Annotated Games>], in which he analyses 25 of his games in greater depth. It is written in English. ("I was too lazy to translate the whole book into German.." R.H.)] on some 13 pages in his annotations of Huebner vs B Andersen, 1968 --> Game Collection: x 25+ Annotated Games (by Robert Huebner) #2
|
|
100 games, 1889-2023 - 46f_Rook versus Pawns
8 games, 1962-2012 - 46g_RN:NN
5 games, 1978-2016 - 47d_R:N
111 games, 1911-2022 - 47e RR:RN
<Henri Rinck, 1923>
click for larger view
1. Ra1 Nc4 2. Kb1+ Na5 3. Rb8 1-0 [Zugzwang]
<F. Prokop, 1925>
click for larger view
1. Ra4+ Kd3 2. Rb3+ Kd2 3. Ra6 Kd1 4. Rb1+ Kd2 5. Rbb6 1-0 [wins pinned ♘] <J. Berger, 1890>
click for larger view
1.Rh6 (1.Rg6? Nd7 2.Rxa6 Nc5+) 1...Ra1 2.Kb2 (2.Rxb6 Rb1+) 2...Ra6 3.Rg8+ Kb7 4.Rg7+ Kb8 5.Kb1 1-0 [Zugzwang]
|
|
67 games, 1914-2022 - 47ex_RR:RNN
14 games, 1953-2022 - 47ey_RR(B) vs RBB
26 games, 1924-2019 - 47ez_RR:RBN
17 games, 1954-2022 - 47f_RR vs RB (plus pawns)
177 games, 1883-2022 - 47g_RR:BB (double exchange sac)
double exchange sacrifice during the game / in the endgame
|
|
6 games, 1988-2013
|
Kibitzing
