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.
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]
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.]
This is the first acceptablepractical endgame that I could find.
Philidor L'analyse des echecs 1749 (2), 1726
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.]
The black rook is forced to a less favorable square.
[Weak is3...¦e3 4.¦b7]
[Another interesting variation is 4...¢c8 5.¦a7! ¦b16.¦h7! ¢b8
7.¦h8+ ¢a7 8.¦a8+ ¢b6 9.¦b8+]
This move would make no sense if the black rook should be on c2.
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.]
[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]
The second point:
12...¢c8 13.¥e6+ ¢d8 14.¦b8+ ¦c815.¦xc8# 1–0