FUNDAMENTAL CHESS ENDINGS Wtm
Reference works
Encyclopaedia of Chess Endings (ECE), Bishop and Knight Endings volume, Nicosia 1993
Läufer- und Springerendspiele (Av), Aver-bakh, Sportverlag Berlin 1987
Exercises
(Solutions on pages 371-3)
In the game Black didn't manage to coordinate his pieces and soon resigned. Can you do better?
True, you have the wrong rook's pawn, but nobody said that you have to let the black king into the saving corner!
How can White avoid the known fortresses?
With you as the shepherd and the bishop as your dog, let's drive the sheep out of the corner! Give some sample variations.
White has just played g4, threatening to leave you with the wrong rook's pawn! How do you react, ...hxg4 or ...h4?
It looks pretty grim for White. Is there any defence?
If Black were to move, he would lose at once. Can White make any use of this fact?
It looks drawish as White has only one pawn left. What should White do?
We now move on to positions where both sides have a bishop. Endings with same- or opposite-coloured bishops are so different in evaluation and play that a strict separation is useful. We start with...
4.2 Same-Coloured Bishop Endings
A few thoughts first. As the bishops have the same colour, they often fight for the same squares. The stronger side can usually offer a bishop exchange to gain control over certain diagonals. The fight on the 32 uncontrolled squares is left to the kings and pawns. It is important to know that it can be very difficult to drive a defending king away from an uncontrolled square, especially if a check with a pawn isn't available and the defending bishop is free, so that zugzwang is unlikely.
Let us think about the pawn-structure. There are pros and cons and a general rule could easily be misunderstood, but in most cases your pawn-chains are clearly better placed on the opposite colour to your bishop. This has the obvious advantage that they can't be attacked by the opponent's bishop and that they restrict the opponent's king. You can than protect the 'holes' in between with your bishop or (in closed structures) attack the opponent's pawn-chain yourself. A pawn-chain on your bishop's colour can be protected by your bishop and sometimes severely restricts the opponent's bishop in its actions, but there is a big disadvantage. The pawns are open to attack from both the opponent's bishop and king, which can invade through the holes unprotected by the bishop and the pawns. You can then only deny the entrance with your own king, which often leads to zugzwang positions.
The topic is discussed as follows, as always starting with the most basic positions: A: Bishop + Pawn(s) vs Bishop 107
B: Pawns on One Wing 110
C: Pawns on Both Wings 111
D: Important Motifs and Resources 114
There are two basic defensive resources as the bishop can sacrifice itself for the pawn:
1) If the defending king reaches a square in front of the pawn opposite to the bishop's colour, it is an ironclad draw.
2) If the defender's king gets to the rear of the pawn as in 4.26, he can draw according to Centurini's Rule.
We start with the case when the defender tries to get in front of the pawn:
V.Ivanchuk - B.Geifand
-Novgorod 1996
After 1 4>g6 4>e7 2 Ac4 <&f8 = Black's king gets in front of the pawn and no progress can be made whatsoever.
I...&e7?? runs into 2 f5! £g4 (2...£h5 3 Ab3 &e8 4 f6+ <£>d6 5 &c2 4>e5 6 Ag6 +-) 3 f6+! 4>xe6 4 f7! +-.
From f5 the bishop can escape on both diagonals if it is challenged. Not 2...&e4? 3 $Lg6\ &d5 4 f5! +-.
3 &g6 £g4 4 <£f 7 &h3 5 i_c2 &g4 6 &b3 i.f5 V2-V2
If the defending king can't get in front of the pawn, the other principal method of defence is to go to the rear of the pawn. We deal with dark-squared bishops but Centurini's Rule is valid analogously for light-squared bishops.
The next position illustrates Centurini's Rule with the kings in vertical opposition. The black king controls the important f6-square and Black can't fall into zugzwang as both the diagonals from e7 are long enough (at least four squares).
- L.Centurini, 1856
Blocking the pawn, so Black has time to change the bishop's diagonal. This is why Black's control of f6 is so important - if White were able to play £f6 then he would win.
Centurini's Rule: if the passed pawn has advanced beyond the line, the attacker is winning as one of the diagonals is shorter than four squares and therefore not long enough to avoid a zugzwang position.
There are two exceptions to this rule, both given by Centurini in 1856: w<&e8, £h6, Af7; b<A>e6, i.d6 and w<S?g8, &e3, Ah7; b<£g6, Ae5 are drawn whoever moves first (Av 169, Av 167). If the edge is near, the attacker has problems winning (see, e.g., Centurini's position 0.01).
Halberstadt illustrated the fight of the kings to reach the opposition as in 4.26 with the following masterpiece (see next diagram):
1 4>d6? 4>d3 2 <&c7 <£c4 3 <£>c8 4>d5 4 Ag5 Aa5! 5 £f4 <&c6! = draws by Centurini's Rule.
Or: I...i.f22*d5!*d3 3*c6!+-; l...Ad2 2 <S?f5! Ael 3 <S?g5! Ab4 4 <4>g6 <S?d3 5 4>f7 Ael6Ac7+-.
2id4!
White gains several tempi by using the route c4-b5-b6-b7, because Black's bishop always needs access to the a5-d8 diagonal to parry White's threat to free the queening square.
2...&f3 3 ¿c4! ¿.el 4 ¿b5! £.g3 5 ¿c6 iLel 6 ¿b6 &f2+ 7 ¿b7 £el 8 Jiel &a5 9 ¿c8 ¿e4 10 iLd6 ¿d5 11 &c7! +-
V.Halberstadt, 1939
Nunn deals with the subject of bishop and pawn vs bishop in much more detail in Secrets of Minor-Piece Endings (pp. 151 -205).
With two extra pawns, the winning chances are very high. In the following two examples the presence of wrong rook's pawns causes difficulties:
R.Fischer - P.Keres
Zurich 1959
First White forces the black bishop to the h3-c8 diagonal. 3...Àd5 4 Àg6 £e6 5 &f6 Not, of course, 5 f5?? £xf5! 6 Jlxf5 = (4.09).
5...£.c4 6 &g51c6 7 i.h5 <£>h7 8 &g4 That's it: Black can't stop f5! 8...£c4
9 f5 &f7 10 £h5 i.c4 11 £.g6+ &g8 12 f6 1-0
In view of, e.g., 12...£b3 13 <4>f4 ±c4 14 ■ieS £.b3 15 &d6 ±c4 16 4>e7 £b3 17 i.f7+ i.xf7 18 h7+ $xh7 19 £>xf7 +-.
Averbakh gives more details with bishop and two isolated pawns vs bishop (see Av 197-210).
A wrong rook's pawn also complicates the win with connected passed pawns:
Z.Gyimesi - M.Ruf
Lenk 1993
With careful manoeuvring Gyimesi doesn't allow Ruf to sacrifice his bishop for the g-pawn until he has advanced far enough:
1 4>f2 &e5 2 <£>e3 £.e6 3 £g2 i.g4 4 £.f3 jiLh3 5 £h5
6...&a4 7 &g4 8 $f4 Jld7 9 £g4 &a4 10 h5 &g7 11 sfegS &h7 12 Af5+ <±>g7 13 h6+ ■ih8 14^f6Adl 15£e4 4g8 16&g5 £e2 17 ■4f4 &f7 (17...*h8 18 &f3 +-) 18 ±h7 +-.
7 ±g4 i.d5+ 8 4>e3 £b3 9 £h5 &e6 10 £f3 £d7 11 £e4 ±g412 £d3 £e6
12...&dl 13 &e 2 £b3 14 g4 £e 6 15 g5 <£>f5 16 4f3 &d5+ 17 4>g3 Jie4 18 £g4+ 4»e5 19 h5 £d3 20 h6 &c2 21 4»h4 &d3 (21...<S?d6 22 g6 Axg6 23 i-g5 Jih7 24 Jif5 Ag8 25 4>f6 +-) 22 4>h5 +-.
13 h5 ¿g4 14 h6 &f6 15 *f4 £dl 16 g4 "4>f7
17 £h7 £e2 18 g5 &c4 19 &e5 <£>e7 20 ±e4<4>f81-0
We should note two exceptions to the rule that two connected passed pawns win. The first shows a nice bishop-hunt:
J.Moravec, 1927
1 <£al! (NC) 1..AA5 2 i.e4! Ae6 3 Af5! £f7 4 £g6! £g8 5 ÜLh7! Aa2 6 £c2! b3 7 £xb3! axb3 stalemate The second is a fortress:
- R.Fine, 1941
The pawns are blockaded on squares opposite to the bishop's colour and there is no chance of zugzwang. Therefore, White can't make real progress:
1 &b2 £f4 2 ¿a3 iLgS 3 ia4 i_d8! 4 b5 &c7 =
This diagram is an example of the following general rule for bishop endings: connected passed pawns should be on squares opposite to your bishop's colour to avoid a blockade.
B) Pawns on One Wing
With pawns only on one wing the drawish tendency is very high as it is very difficult to dislodge a defending king from a square opposite to the bishop's colour. Therefore, most positions with two pawns vs one pawn and three pawns vs two pawns are drawn. Even with four vs three, a draw is a very likely outcome:
Kemeri 1937
l...f6!? 2 ¿c5 i_d7 3 £g8 h6 4 ¿d5 ia4 5 4d4 £d7 6 £c4 £a4 7 i_d3 £e8 8 h4 g5
The game was soon agreed drawn. Black has put all his pawns on dark squares and the bishop will be able to prevent any penetration by the white king.
The next example is very complicated (see following diagram).
White has to sacrifice two pawns in order to win:
3 Ac2 4>d7 (3...AH3?! 4 Ab3+ <&e7 5 Axf7 +-) 4 .&xf5+? is no good as the pawn ending is drawn: 4...&xf5 5 *xf5 *e7 =.
4 g6!! fxg6 5 &g8 4>f8 6 &xh7 Adl 7 A.xg6 Ab3 8 *xf5 &g8 9 *f6 4>h8 10 i.f7 Aa4 11 e6 4>h7 12 4>g5 Ab3 13 Ag6+ <&g8 14 e7 Aa4 15 &f6 and White brings his king to d8 and finishes with ¿.f5-d7 +- (B.Rosen in Fit im End-spiel).
3 Ae2 Ag2 4 Ag4 Ae4 5 Ac8 In order to gain access to g8. 5...<£c7 6 Ae6 ¿d6 7 Ag8 h6 8 Af7 Zugzwang. 8...h5
8...<4>c6?! 9 <4>e5 +-. 9 Ae8 Ac2 10 Af7 Ae4 (D)
G.Timoshchenko * M.Stephenson
Hastings 1966/7
5...<£g8! 6 g6 Ah5 7 g7 Ag6 8 e7 Ae8 (8...<£f7?? 9 e8»+ +-) 9 <4>xf5 Ah5 = (Rosen). 6 g6 1-0
C) Pawns on Both Wings
We start with an isolated central pawn:
L.Polugaevsky - H.Mecking
Mar del Plata 1971
Black's pawns on the queenside have already been frozen on the wrong colour. White's next step is to fix Black's kingside pawns on light squares as well: 1 h4 Af3 2 b4 Ahl
2...Ag4 3 Afl Af5 4 Ag2 Ae6 5 e4 dxe4 (5..Ail 6 e5+ <4>c6 7 h5 Ae6 8 h6 Ag8 9 Ah3 +-) 6 Axe4 Ac8 7 AO 4>c7 8 &e5 Af5 9 Ad5 b6 10 h5 +-.
- 4.31A +/-
How can White make progress now? Poluga-evsky finds a convincing solution:
11 f5! Axf5
ll...gxfS 12 Axh5 4>e6 13 Adl Ag2 14 Ab3 Af3 15 h5 Axh5 16 Axd5+ 4>d6 17 Axb7 Ae2 18 Ac8 +-.
13...*d7 14 4>c5 4>c7 (14...*e7 15 e5 4>d7 16 <&b6 +-) 15 Af7 g5 16 hxg5 h4 17 g6 +-.
14 4>e5 g5 15 hxg5 h4 16 g6 h3 17 g7 h2 18 g8» hi® 19»17+ ¿d8 20 »f8+ 1-0
The next two examples are very similar. In both cases the attacker uses his bishop to bring about a decisive zugzwang situation.
In the following diagram, Black has a lot of weak pawns on light squares and d4 must be constantly guarded by the black king. Pytel's bishop manoeuvres are very instructive and should be studied in detail:
Thanks to zugzwang, White manages to play a4 and thereby creates a new weakness on b5.
6...bxa4 7 Axa4 Af5 8 Adl Ad7 9 Ae2 Ac8 10 h5 *f5 11 <£d4 Ab7 12 Afl <&g5 13 4>e5 +-.
7 axb5 axb5 8 Ae2
B.Pytel - E.Hojdarova
Hungary 1969
Zugzwang again. Black has to play ...h5 with a further weakness.
8...H5 9 Afl Ac610 Ad3 Ae811 Ac2 Af7 12 Ah7! Ae8 13 Ad3
The third decisive zugzwang. Since Black doesn't want to lose the b-pawn or allow Ag6, the king has to retreat.
13...d4-f 14cxd4+<£d5 15 Afl Ad7 16<£d3 Af5+ 17&c3 Ad7 18 Ag2+ 4>e6 19 Ae4+-
The final zugzwang; again Black retreats:
17 Ag8 1-0
Shabalov's bishop manoeuvres in the next example are even more impressive (see following diagram).
When looking at this position you should ask yourself the important question: "What would Black do if it were his turn to move?" Shabalov certainly did, and the first ten moves were his answer:
1 Ad2 Ad8 2 i-el Ab6 3 Ah4 Ae3
4 Ag3 Ad4
4...Af4 5 Ael 4>b6 6 Ac3 g5 7 4>d5 4>b5 8 Axe5 &b4 9 Af6 &xb3 10 e5 +-.
5 Ah2 Ab2 6 Agi Aa3 7 Af2 Ae7 8 Ag3 Ad6 9Ael £c7 10 Ac3
Now Shabalov has reached the starting position with Black to move and Varavin has to make a concession and move a pawn. After that the same idea starts again:
A.Shabalov - V. Varavin
Post a comment