[blind-chess] Reposting: The Chess Middlegame, the chess endgame
- From: "Roderick Macdonald" <rjmacdonald@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- To: "Blind-Chess Mailing List" <blind-chess@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Sun, 8 Sep 2013 02:49:10 -1000
(Originally posted as Articles #62, #79 & #80):
Chess Article #62:
The Chess middlegame
Adapted and Condensed from
Wikipedia, the Free Encyclopedia
The middlegame in chess refers to the portion of the game that
happens immediately after the opening (usually the first move after
the procession of moves that make up a standard opening) and blends
somewhat with the endgame, usually when queens are traded, although
if several pieces remain on the board one can talk about a
"middlegame without queens". During this time, players will attempt
to strengthen their positions while weakening their opponent's,
both by careful arrangement of the pieces for prepared attacks and
defenses and by whittling away at their opponent's numbers.
The demarcation between the opening and middlegame, and the
middlegame and endgame, is not always clear. Compared to the
opening, both players will usually have completed the development
of all or most pieces (except the king which will usually have been
brought to relative safety.) Compared to the endgame, the
middlegame has several pieces on the board, and the strength of
these forces makes the kings' roles rather defensive. Factors such
as control of the center are more important in the middlegame than
the endgame. There are differing opinions and criteria for when the
middlegame ends and the endgame starts.
Theory on the middlegame is less developed than the opening or
endgames. Since middlegame positions from game to game are unique,
memorization of theoretical variations is not possible as it is in
the opening. Likewise, there are usually too many pieces on the
board for theoretical positions to be analyzed as can be done in
the endgame.
Aims of the middlegame
The Middle Game in Chess by Reuben Fine lists three major factors
in the middlegame: king safety, force (material) and mobility,
although not all of these factors are of equal importance. If king
safety is a serious issue, a well-executed attack on the king can
render other considerations, including material advantages,
irrelevant.
Material is another important consideration. Fine notes that with
all other things equal, any material advantage will usually be
decisive. According to Fine, a material advantage will usually not
give a direct mating attack unless the advantage is very large (a
rook or more), rather it can be used as a means of gaining more
material and a decisive endgame advantage.
The issue of mobility is ensuring that the pieces have a wide scope
of action and targets to focus on. The concept is largely strategic
in nature, and involves concepts as space, pawn weaknesses (since
weak pawns can compel pieces to defensive duties, reducing their
mobility), and securing outposts for the pieces.
The strategy required for middlegame play varies considerably. Some
middlegame positions feature closed centers featuring maneuvering
behind the lines, while other middlegames are wide open, where both
players attempt to gain the initiative. Dan Heisman noted three
features which can seriously alter the way the middlegame is
played.
First, if the kings are castled on opposite wings, and queens
remain on the board, the position can be very violent, with both
players aiming to assault the enemy king. Material considerations
are often secondary to pursuing the attack, and it can even be
advantageous to lose pawns in front of the enemy king in order to
open up lines for the rooks and queen.
Second, positions where the pawn structure is static and locked,
can also feature mutual attacks, since players often elect to play
on the side where they have more space (playing on the side of the
board in which their pawns are pointing). Time is often less of a
concern in such middlegames, allowing lengthy maneuvers. Both
players need to be on the lookout for pawn breaks, and the
possibility of taking advantage of the open files which may arise
from them.
Third, if one player has an overwhelming material advantage and is
clearly winning, the stronger player can usually afford to violate
several of the normal middlegame principles in order to trade down
to an endgame. For example, trading queens even at the cost of a
ruined pawn structure may be a viable option.
Transition to the endgame
Not all games reach the endgame, since an attack on the king, or a
combination leading to large material gains can end the game while
it is still in the middlegame. At other times, an advantage needs
to be pursued in the endgame, and learning how to make favorable
exchanges leading to a favorable endgame is an important skill.
The last thing that happens in the middlegame is the setup for
endgame. Since many endgames involve the promotion of a pawn, it is
usually good to keep that in mind when making trades during the
middlegame. For example, World Champion Max Euwe considered a
preponderance of pawns on the queenside (queenside majority) an
advantage because this might be used to create a passed pawn.
----------
Chess Articles #79 & #80:
The Chess endgame
Adapted and Condensed from
Wikipedia, the Free Encyclopedia
In chess, the endgame (or end game or ending) refers to the stage
of the game when there are few pieces 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; 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 be a useful attacking piece.
Many people have composed endgame studies, endgame positions which
are solved by finding a win for White when there is no obvious way
of winning, or a draw when it seems White must lose.
Endgames can be classified according to the type of pieces that
remain. Some common types of endgames are discussed below.
++1. When does the endgame begin?
An endgame is when there are only a few pieces left. With the usual
system for chess piece point 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 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)
1. Endgames favor an aggressive king
2. Passed pawns increase greatly in importance
3. Zugzwang is often a factor in endgames and rarely in other
stages of the game.
++2. Common types of endgames
++1.A Basic checkmates
These are positions in which one side has only a king and the other
side has one or two pieces and can checkmate the opposing king,
with the pieces working together with their 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) can not. 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 can not 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, but if the
weaker side also has a pawn, checkmate is sometimes possible,
because positions which would be stalemate without the pawn are not
stalemate with the additional pawn. If the pawn is blocked by a
knight on or behind the Troitzky line, the knights have a long
theoretical win. There are some other positions when the pawn is
past the Troitzky line in which the knights can force checkmate,
but the procedure is long and difficult. In either case, 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; he cannot be driven into the corner.)
++2.B King and pawn endings
King and pawn endgames involve only kings and pawns on one or both
sides. Cecil Purdy said "Pawn endings are to chess as putting is to
golf."
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.
++2.B1 King and pawn versus king
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). 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.
++2.C Knight and pawn endings
Knight and pawn endgames feature clever maneuvering 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)
An outside passed pawn can outweigh a protected passed central
pawn, unlike king and pawn endgames. A knight blockading a
protected passed pawn attacks the protector, while the knight
blockading an outside passed pawn is somewhat out of action.
++2.C1 Knight and pawn versus knight
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 (Fine & Benko
2003:7-8).
++2.D Bishop and pawn endings
Diagram #1:
White: King at f4, Bishop at b3, Pawns at b4, c5, e5, g5, h6
Black: King at e7, Bishop at f7, Pawns at b5, c6, g6, h7
Molnar-Nagy, 1966
Bishop and pawns endgame. White to move. White has a good bishop,
black 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.
Diagram #1, 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) Bxe6 2.Bc2! Bf7 3.Be4! 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!
++2.D1 Bishop and pawn versus bishop on the same color
Diagram #2:
White: King at c8, Bishop at d8, Pawn at b7
Black: King at c6, Bishop at h2
Centurini, 1847
White to move wins.
Two rules given by Luigi Centurini apply:
* The game is a draw if the black king can reach any square in
front of the pawn that is not of the color of the bishop.
* 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 have at least two squares each
(Fine & Benko 2003:152).
++2.D2 Bishops on opposite colors
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. Interestingly, 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.
++2.E Bishop versus knight endings (with pawns)
Current theory is that bishops are better than knights about 60
percent of the time, in the middlegame and endgame. The more
symmetrical the pawns are (i.e. Black's pawns are on the same files
as White's pawns), the better it is for the knight. The knight is
best suited at an outpost in the center 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: 1. In
general the bishop is better than the knight.
2. 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.
3. If the material is even, the position should be drawn. However,
the bishop can exploit positional advantages more efficiently. 4.
When most of the pawns are on the same color as the bishop (i.e. a
bad bishop), the knight is better.
++2.E1 Bishop and pawn versus knight
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).
++2.E2 Knight and pawn versus bishop
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).
++2.F Rook and pawn endings
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 1999:7).
Three rules of thumb regarding rooks are worth noting:
1. 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.
2. Rooks are very poor defenders relative to their attacking
strength. So it is often good to sacrifice a pawn for activity.
This is especially so in the following case
3. 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.
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.
++2.F1 Rook and pawn versus rook
Generally (but not always), if the defending king can reach the
queening square of the pawn the game is a draw, otherwise the
attacker usually wins (if it is not a rook pawn). The winning
procedure can be very difficult and some positions require more
than sixty moves to win, so the fifty move rule comes into play. 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 most difficult case of a rook and pawn versus a rook is 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."
++2.F2 Quotation
* "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. This quotation has variously been attributed
to Savielly Tartakower and to Siegbert Tarrasch. Writers Victor
Korchnoi (Korchnoi 2002:29), John Emms (Emms 1999:41), and James
Howell (Howell 1997:36) attribute the quote to Tartakower, whereas
Mark Dvoretsky (Dvoretsky 2006:158), Andy Soltis (Soltis 2003:52),
and Karsten M`uller attribute it to Tarrasch. 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.
++2.G Queen and pawn endings
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.
++2.G1 Queen and pawn versus queen
This combination is a win less frequently than the equivalent
ending with rooks, and it is very difficult to play. According to
Fine and Benko, this ending is a draw unless the pawn is a bishop
pawn or a central pawn (i.e. king pawn or queen pawn) and the pawn
is in the seventh rank and is supported by its king. If the
defending king can get in front of the pawn, the game is a draw;
otherwise it is best for the defender to keep his king far away
from the pawn. The defender should keep checking until he runs out
of check, and then pin the pawn (Fine & Benko 2003:538). Based on
computer analysis, M|ller and Lamprecht give a different
description. According to them, normally the defending king needs
to be in front of the pawn. A rook pawn or knight pawn is a
theoretical draw if the defending king is in front or near the pawn
or if the king is in the opposite corner. A knight pawn has more
practical winning chances than a rook pawn. A bishop pawn or
central pawn is a win if the defending king is not in front of the
pawn. A bishop pawn has better winning chances than a central pawn
(M`uller & Lamprecht 2001:316). John Nunn states that analysis
since Fine's initial work (in 1941) has shown that there are many
more winning positions than were known at that time (ignoring the
fifty move rule in some cases) (Nunn 2007:148-53,248-49).
Edmar Mednis gives this breakdown when the defending king is not
able to help: (Mednis 1987:126-27,134)
* A bishop pawn is the best pawn to have. It is relatively easy
to advance and is a win once it reaches the seventh rank.
* A central pawn wins if it reaches the seventh rank, but it is
difficult to get it there. Even if the pawn reaches the sixth
rank, the position is usually a draw.
* A knight pawn is relatively easy to get to the seventh rank,
but the position may be a theoretical draw.
* Positions with rook pawns are theoretical draws, but in
practice it may be difficult to draw.
++2.8 Endings with no pawns
Besides the basic checkmates, there are other endings with no
pawns. They do not occur very often in practice.
++3. Positions with a material imbalance
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 point 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.
++4. General considerations
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. 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.
In the endgame, it is better for the player with more pawns to
avoid too many pawn exchanges, because they should be won for
nothing. 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, an interesting
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.
++5. Effect of tablebases on endgame theory
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 (M`uller & Lamprecht 2001:8,400-406):
* 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, and 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 prevent the bishops from getting to the fortress and win
most of the time. However, it can take up to 71 moves (Nunn
2002:290ff).
Diagram #3:
White: King at g3, Queen at c4
Black: King at f8, Knights at f6 and g6
This position was thought to be drawn, but White to move wins in
this position. Some similar positions are actually drawn (e.g with
the queen on e2).
* Queen versus two knights. This was thought to be a draw and
generally it is, but the queen has more winning positions than
was previously thought. Also, many analysts gave a position
(see diagram #3) that they thought was a draw but it is
actually a win for the queen (Nunn 2002:300ff). In diagram #3,
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 here are many losing positions, some
of them very lengthy." On the other hand, Batsford Chess
Endings states that 89.7 percent of the starting positions are
wins for the queen (Speelman, Tisdall & Wade 1996:7). However,
these percentages can be misleading, and most "general
results" are based on the analysis of
grandmasters using the tablebase data (M`uller & 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 (M`uller & Lamprecht 2001:339).
Diagram #4:
White: King at d5, Bishops at a4 and f8
Black: King at b6, Knight at b7
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 diagram #4 was thought to be a draw for over
one hundred years, but tablebases show that White wins in 45
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).
* 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).
++6. Longest forced win
Diagram #5:
White: King at d1, Rooks at g3 and g2,
Black: King at f1, Rooks at a8 and f7,
White to move has a forced win, starting with 1. Rg1+ (the only
winning move). White wins a rook on move 290. Sixty-eight of the
moves are the only move which preserves the win.
Diagram #6:
White: King at c1, Queen at b3, Bishop at a1, Knight at a6
Black: King at b8, Queen at h7, Bishop at b7,
Black to move, White converts to a simpler winning position in 330
moves.
Diagram #7:
White: King at d2, Queen at h1, Knight at h2
Black: King at f4, Rook at b7, Bishop at b3, Knight at g5
With Black to move, White forces a win in 517 moves.
In October 2005, Marc Bourzutschky and Yakov Konoval announced that
a position in the ending of a king, two rooks and a knight versus
a king and two rooks requires 290 moves to convert to a simpler
winning endgame. This type of ending is thought to be a draw in
general. The old record was 243 moves from a position in a rook and
knight versus two knights endgame, discovered by Lewis Stiller in
1991. (Endings of a rook and knight versus two knights are
generally draws.) The fifty move rule is ignored in the calculation
of these results and lengths.
On March 10, 2006 Marc Bourzutschky and Yakov Konoval announced a
new record for the longest endgame, requiring 330 moves to
conversion to a simpler ending. In May 2006 a record-shattering
517-move endgame was announced. Mark 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 (see diagram #7).
++7. Endgame classification
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.
GBR code is an alternative method of endgame classification.
++8. Table of the most common endings
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.) (M`uller & Lamprecht
2001:11-12, 304)
Percent Pieces
8.45 Rook vs. rook
6.76 Rook & bishop vs. rook & knight
3.45 Two rooks versus two rooks
3.37 Rook & bishop vs. rook & bishop (same color)
3.29 Bishop vs. knight
3.09 Rook & knight vs. rook & knight
2.87 King & pawns vs. king (and pawns)
1.92 Rook & bishop vs. rook & bishop (opposite color) 1.87 Queen
vs. queen
1.77 Rook & bishop vs. rook
1.65 Bishop vs. bishop (same color)
1.56 Knight vs. knight
1.51 Rook vs. bishop
1.42 Rook & knight vs. rook
1.11 Bishop vs. bishop (opposite color)
1.01 Bishop vs. pawns
Percent Pieces
0.97 Rook vs. knight
0.92 Knight vs. pawns
0.90 Queen & minor piece vs. queen
0.75 Rook vs. pawns
0.69 Queen vs. rook & minor piece
0.67 Rook & pawn vs. rook
0.56 Rook & two pawns vs. rook
0.42 Queen vs. pawns
0.40 Queen vs. rook
0.31 Queen vs. two rooks
0.23 King & one pawn vs. king
0.17 Queen vs. minor piece
0.09 Queen & one pawn vs. queen
0.08 Queen vs. two minor pieces
0.02 Bishop & knight vs. king
0.01 Queen vs. three minor pieces
++9. Quotations
* "In 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
Other related posts:
- » [blind-chess] Reposting: The Chess Middlegame, the chess endgame - Roderick Macdonald
