2
Philidor has the better pawn structure in the endgame. He can attack on bothflanks.
26...¥a3 27.¦c2 cxb3 28.axb3?
[A weakness is avoided by 28.¤xb3 ]
28...¦fc8 29.¦xc8 ¦xc8 30.¦a1 ¥b4 31.¦xa6 ¦c3 32.¢f2 ¦d3 33.¦a2¥xd2 34.¦xd2 ¦xb3
Black pressures on the queenside.
35.¦c2 h4!
The attackswitches to the kingside.
36.¦c7+ ¢g6 37.gxh4 ¤h5 38.¦d7
[38.¦c6+ ¢f739.¦c7+ ¢e6 40.¦c6+!; 38.¢e2 ¤g3+ 39.¢f2 ¤f1 leads to the game. 40.¢xf1 ¦xe341.¦d7 ¦f3+ 42.¢g2]
38...¤xf4!
Philidor sees a combination despite of theblindfold. [When Black plays 38...¤f6 or; 38...¦b5 he will make no progress.]
39.¥xf4 ¦f3+ 40.¢g2 ¦xf4 41.¦xd5 ¦f3
Philidor has his favorite connectedpassed pawns.
42.¦d8 ¦d3 43.d5 f4 44.d6 ¦d2+ 45.¢f1 ¢f7 46.h5 e3 47.h6??
[47.¦d7+! ¢e6 48.¦d8! leads to an escape.]
47...f3
This is the first acceptablepractical endgame that I could find.
0–1
(2) Philidor,Francois
Philidor L'analyse des echecs 1749 (2), 1726
[JvR]
Endgame theory started with Polerio, Greco and Stamma. Philidor also made valuable contributions. He formulated the basics for the endgame of rook andbishop versus rook.
1.¦f8+ ¦e8 2.¦f7 ¦e2!
[2...¦h8 3.¦a7 ¦h6+ 4.¥e6 leads tomate.]
3.¦g7!
The black rook is forced to a less favorable square.
3...¦e1
[Weak is3...¦e3 4.¦b7]
4.¦b7 ¦c1
[Another interesting variation is 4...¢c8 5.¦a7! ¦b16.¦h7! ¢b8
(6...¦b6+ 7.¥c6)
7.¦h8+ ¢a7 8.¦a8+ ¢b6 9.¦b8+]
5.¥b3!!
This move would make no sense if the black rook should be on c2.
5...¦c3!
The rook movesto a bad rank. [White also wins in 5...¢c8 6.¦b4 ¢d8 7.¦f4 ¦e1
(7...¢c8 8.¥d5 ¢b8 9.¦a4)
8.¥a4 ¢c8 9.¥c6 ¦d1+ 10.¥d5 ¢b8 11.¦a4]
6.¥e6 ¦d3+ 7.¥d5 ¦c3
[7...¢c8 8.¦a7 loses at once.]
8.¦d7+! ¢c8
[Or 8...¢e8 9.¦g7]
9.¦f7 ¢b810.¦b7+ ¢c8 11.¦b4! ¢d8
[The first point of the last white move is 11...¦d312.¦a4]
12.¥c4!!
The second point:
12...¢c8 13.¥e6+ ¢d8 14.¦b8+ ¦c815.¦xc8# 1–0