Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • Practical Endgame Play - Beyond The Basics The Definitive Guide To The Endgames That Really Matter (Everyman Chess) (Para Jogadores Nível 1600 PDF

    Uploaded by

    Humberto Junior
    286 views544 pages

    Original Title

    Practical Endgame Play - Beyond the Basics The definitive guide to the endgames that really matter (Everyman Chess) ( Para jogadores nível 1600.pdf

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    PDF or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Report this Document

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    286 views544 pages

    Practical Endgame Play - Beyond The Basics The Definitive Guide To The Endgames That Really Matter (Everyman Chess) (Para Jogadores Nível 1600 PDF

    Uploaded by

    Humberto Junior

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    of 544
    Glenn Flear Practical Endgame Play - beyond the basics EVERYMAN CHESS Glenn Flear Practical Endgame Play - beyond the basics the definitive guide to the endgames that really matter EVERYMAN CHESS Gloucester Publishers plc www.everymanchess.com First published in 2007 by Gloucester Publishers plc (formerly Everyman Publishers plc), Northburgh House, 10 Northburgh Street, London EC1V OAT Copyright © 2007 Glenn Flear First published 2007 by Gloucester Publishers ple The right of Glenn Flear to be identified as the author of this work has been asserted in ac- cordance with the Copyrights, Designs and Patents Act 1988. Alll rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system or transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic, electrostatic, magnetic tape, photocopying, recording or otherwise, without prior permission of the publisher. British Library Cataloguing-in-Publication Data A catalogue record for this book is available from the British Library. ISBN 978 185744 555 8 Distributed in North America by The Globe Pequot Press, P.O Box 480, 246 Goose Lane, Guilford, CT 06437-0480. Alll other sales enquiries should be directed to Everyman Chess, Northburgh House, 10 Northburgh Street, London EC1V OAT tel: 020 7253 7887 fax: 020 7490 3708 email: info@everymanchess.com website: www.everymanchess.com Everyman is the registered trade mark of Random House Inc. and is used in this work under license from Random House Inc. EVERYMAN CHESS SERIES (formerly Cadogan Chess) Chief advisor: Byron Jacobs Commissioning editor: John Emms Assistant editor: Richard Palliser Typesetting and editing by First Rank Publishing, Brighton. Cover design by Horatio Monteverde. Printed and bound in America by Versa Press. webWwne 10 11 Bibliography Introduction Statistics Section 1: Clear Material Advantage Two Extra Pieces One Extra Piece Two Rooks versus Rook and Minor Piece Queen and Rook versus Queen and Minor Piece Rook and Minor Piece versus Two Minor Pieces Section 2: Only Minor Pieces Two Bishops versus Two Minor Pieces Other Double Minor Piece Combinations Section 3: Asymmetric Struggles Rook versus Two Minor Pieces Queen versus Rook and Knight Queen versus Rook and Bishop Queen versus Two Rooks 11 15 20 40 63 93 135 162 194 223 240 262 12 13 14 45 16 17 18 19 20 Section 4: Rook and Minor Pieces Rook and Bishop versus Rook and Knight Rook and Bishop versus Rook and opposite-coloured Bishop Rook and Bishop versus Rook and same-coloured Bishop Rook and Knight versus Rook and Knight Section 5: Heavyweight Struggles Two Rooks versus Two Rooks Queen and Bishop versus Queen and Knight Queen and Knight versus Queen and Knight Queen and Bishop versus Queen and Bishop Queen and Rook versus Queen and Rook Index of Players Glossary of Special Terms 285 326 345 370 396 422 455 471 500 535 544 Bibliography Books A Pocket Guide to Chess Endgames, Hooper (Bell 1970 & Batsford 1986) Basic Chess Endgames, Fine (Tartan/Bell, 1974 edition) Batsford Chess Endings, Speelman, Tisdall & Wade (Batsford 1993) Botvinnik’s Best Games, Botvinnik (Batsford 1972) Dvoretsky’s Chess Endings, Dvoretsky (Russell Enterprises 2003) Encyclopaedia of Chess Endings (Sahovski Informator 1982-93) Fundamental Chess Endings, Miiller & Lamprecht (Gambit 2001) Informators 1-97 (Sahovski Informator 1966-2007) Practical Rook Endings, Mednis (Chess Enterprises 1982) Secrets of Chess Endgame Strategy, Lars Bo Hansen (Gambit 2006) Secrets of Pawnless Endings, Nunn Batsford 1994) Secrets of Minor-Piece Endings, Nunn (Batsford 1995) The Unknown Capablanca, Hooper & Brandreth (Batsford 1975) The Games of Robert James Fischer, Wade & O'Connell (Batsford 1972) Think Like a Grandmaster, Kotov (Batsford 1971) Winning Chess Endgames, Kosten (Crowood 1987) Software and Databases ChessBase 9 Fritz 8 Mega Database 2005 The Week in Chess Introduction In this book I aim to highlight the lessons to be learnt from master play in positions with lim- ited material. Why did I write this book? For over thirty years I have been actively involved in playing tournaments and league games, my own pleasure from chess coming mainly from the practical — or, if you prefer, competitive — angle. So, although I have the greatest respect for those authors who empha- size the beautiful or artistic side of the game, I tend to write with other tournament competi- tors in mind. I've always enjoyed positions with simplified material. We tend to label these ‘end- games’, although this commonly used term doesn’t mean the same thing to everyone, as you'll see below! I’m not alone in advising students that studying your own games is impor- tant for all phases of the game. But for simplified positions, just as with openings, it's instruc- tive to compare how we have performed with analogous positions from master games. Now if we've had a rook ending or perhaps bishop vs knight, it’s not such a difficult task to find similar positions in a decent endgame book. Positions with one piece each or less are very well covered in chess literature. But those with a little more material are not. In fact it can be very frustrating trying to find any sort of book that covers rook and minor piece vs rook and minor piece. Do you have any in your collection? According to some statistics that I’ve outlined below, more than 15% of all games (almost 20% in mine!) reach this type of position, and yet there is minimal information available for the enthusiastic student. So I’m aiming to fill a gap by writing about those pseudo-endgames which other books neglect. What is an ‘endgame’ anyway? And what on earth is a ‘nuckie’? The word ‘endgame’ is widely used and generally implies the final phase of the game (how- ever long!), assuming that there already has been significant simplification. If we had to de- fine the word more rigorously in terms of material then opinions vary. Some specialists con- sider all queenless positions to be endgames, others those where both sides have limited ma- terial, for instance less than queen and rook. Practical Endgame Play Ihave found it convenient to consider positions with only one piece or less per player as endgames and those with a couple of pieces each by an alternative name. As I don’t know of a term for these pseudo-endgames I've decided to invent one myself! So here are my defini- tions: In this book the term an ‘endgame’ is a position with a maximum of one piece each. A ‘NQE’ (for ‘Not Quite an Endgame’, pronounced ‘nuckie’) is a posi- tion with more material than in an endgame but with a maximum of two pieces each. So rook vs queen would be considered as an endgame, whereas rook and bishop vs rook and knight would be a ‘nuckie’; rook and bishop vs rook also comes into the latter category. I’ve decided to concentrate my efforts on these so-called NQEs. So Ill be covering a var- ied selection such as double rook endings, and two bishops vs knight and bishop, and even queen and rook each, and many other combinations of material in the following twenty chapters. Although endgame principles (such as pushing passed pawns) and positional ones (such as weak squares or a space advantage) obviously come into consideration, they are often complicated by the presence of supplementary pieces. So play is often sharper and more messy than in pure endgames. Dynamic factors are frequently the important ones. If there are heavy pieces on the board, they can be used to target vulnerable kings, as in the middlegame. So any problems with either king are often fundamental to the outcome of the struggle. The side that is objectively weaker has more opportunity to exploit king insecurity to threaten counterplay and thus frustrate the stronger side's plans. The piece power on the board can give rise to some rich possibilities. NQEs are more than just basic endgames in the making, they can also be thought of as late-middlegames. Theory or Practice? Many endgame books consist mainly of studies or established theory and only a modest number of so-called practical examples. Studies are aimed at being aesthetic and surprising, and can help develop theory, which is an attempt to prove best play and the ultimate result. Virtually all of this book consists of examples taken from actual games. There is much less theory anyway in the NQE phase of the game than in actual endgames, and on many occa- sions we can’t be sure of best play or even the logical result. We can, however, see what techniques have been employed in practice by players who are striving to maximize the po- tential of their position. What are the key factors in such sim 'd positions? I've made a list from my own experience of those factors that really have to be taken into account in general in NQEs. Naturally each chapter will highlight the specifics. Introduction 1. Are there chances for a mating attack? Or failing that, a perpetual? 2. Is any material advantage compensated for by positional or tactical factors? Or if not, is it just a trivial win? 3. Are the kings liabilities or assets? 4. Is simplification into an endgame desirable or likely? 5. What are the main characteristics of the pawn structure? Is it in the interests of either player to change this structure? How significant are any passed pawns? 6. Are any of the pieces of either side particularly well placed or badly placed? 7. Whatever the plan decided upon, is there any rush? Is stopping the oppo- nent's potential counter-chances the main priority? 8. Should the defender stay passive or aim to activate? 9. How does the clock situation affect matters? 10. How will the players want to make their game more harmonious? The ninth and penultimate point is becoming more and more relevant in the modern, practical world of chess. Time limits have accelerated and games are much shorter these days. Many players are now finding themselves in permanent time trouble from about move 30 until the end of the game. There is often no respite at move 40, so practical decisions need to be made quickly and without panicking, So there is certainly truth in the assertion that the need to study NQEs is more important than ever. The tenth general principle also requires some thought. What is harmony? It is possible that your immediate thought, when seeing the word ‘harmony’, is of a piece of classical music played by an orchestra, where each musician plays his part in creating the overall effect - which is hopefully an aesthetically pleasing sound! If just one musician gets it wrong then the resulting sound quality is degraded. The word harmony is used in chess as well. If all your pieces, including the king (of course!), and pawns are occupying ideal squares then your position is said to be harmonious. If there is one badly-placed fighting unit or something awry with the pawn structure then problems arise. In the middlegame we can sometimes get away with one underperformer, but after simplification a misplaced piece sticks out like a sore thumb. Aiming for harmony — or to put it another way, avoiding disharmony — is the tenth and perhaps most underestimated of the factors. Practical Endgame Play Tm certainly not the first author to emphasize this point. Here’s some advice offered by Alexander Kotov in his ground-breaking classic Think Like A Grandmaster (Batsford 1971): ‘Remember that in seeking the solution of concrete tasks by analysing variations you should never allow yourself to be carried away and lose sight of the need for a harmonious link between all your pieces. Take it as a rule once or twice to look at the position from a different point of view during the game. Ask yourself, are my pieces cooperating, or is there some disharmony in their ranks?’ Understanding chess harmony is an important skill that really needs emphasizing in NQEs. A question of technique? The old cliché! But what does it mean? Endgame technique can be thought of as logical play using endgame experience and theory. In this book, with more material on the board, technique also takes into account middlegame thinking and therefore has a wider scope, e.g. ‘attacking technique’ etc. How can the reader benefit from this book? As it’s rather a long book you may prefer to read it over time; for instance one chapter per week or perhaps revising an appropriate section when a particular NQE has cropped up in one of your own games, It can in addition be considered as a reference book. Whichever method applies best to you, I hope that by studying this book you will gain insight into the latter stages of a game of chess. You will then, hopefully, be able to apply your newly acquired erudition to practical NQEs and endgames of all sorts. From a personal point of view I'm convinced that I’ve learnt a great deal about the latter phases of the game. | also discovered that many analyses of even very strong players are of- ten flawed. I found many improvements myself and others with the help of a computer. I'm also sure that a close study of my variations by the reader will reveal further mistakes. I make no apology for being human, just think of these lapses as opportunities! Hunting for mistakes is another way in which we can develop our chess ability! Acknowledgements John Emms for his patience and inspiration. Jonathan Tait for his constructive criticism and diligent editorial work. Christine Flear for her moral support. Olivier Letreguilly for his enthusiasm. Glenn Flear Baillargues, France May 2007 10 ‘A good place to start is to ask the following question: What is the likelihood of getting various endings and NQEs in practical play? Apart from just innocent curiosity, discovering the relative probabilities of various NQEs occurring enabled me to know where to concentrate my efforts. If the book has relevance to practical players then it makes sense for the author to go into greater detail in the most common NQEs. I've used a database of my games from the last twenty years to compile the following ta- bles. I believe that, if the reader were to do the same with his own games or with a standard database, the percentages wouldn't be that much different. First of all I compared my results (GCF) with those of Miiller and Lamprecht (M&L from Fundamental Chess Endings, Gambit 2001) who measured a large database. NQE or ending GCF M&L Rook and minor piece each 19.56% 15.13% Rook endings 11.88% 8.45% Bishop vs knight endings 459% 3.29% King and pawn endings 2.49% 2.87% The percentages measure the probability of a material combination occurring in the course of a game. As you can see there are slight differences in the frequency, but the order of magnitude of our separate results are the same. These results can be interpreted as fol- lows: When I sit down to play a game of chess the chance of me obtaining a pure pawn ending is 2.49% or about 1 in 40. The 11.88% that I’ve measured for rook endings means roughly 1 in 8or9. My personal database (2331 games from 1986-2006) threw up the following figures for standard endgames: 41 Practical Endgame Play Rook endings 277 / 2331 games = 11.88% about 1in9 Bishop vs knight endings 107 = 459% about 1 in 22 Pawn endings 58 2.49% about 1 in 40 Queen endings 52 2.23% about 1 in 45, Knight endings 50 2.15% about 1 in 47 Bishop (same) endings 48 2.06% about 1 in 49 Bishop (opposite) endings 2 = 0.94% about 1 in 106 As I'm not covering any of these in this book (except where there is simplification from an NQE) you may wonder why I’m bothering to put these statistics in at all. If however, we compare these figures with those of the principle NQEs you will no doubt quickly grasp my point. Here is my personal Top 25 for NQEs 1 Bravo 948% or linll 2 Weve 5.15% or 1in19 3 B+@ v B48 (same colour) 446% or = 1in22 4° BOvee 103 442% or 1in23 5 Mehvine 95 4.08% or 1in25 6 WHR vWD 59 253% or 1in40 7 MRve 37 159% or =1in 63 8 mAvE 36 154% or = 1in 65 9 @+& v DR (same colour) 31 = 133% or 1in75 10= B+& v B+& (opposite colour) 28 1.20% or ‘1 in 83 10= WH) v WH 28 1.20% or ‘1 in 83 12 W+& v W+2 (same colour) 7 = 116% or 1in86 13 S+B VOR 24 = 1.038% or 1in97 14 Mev Eee 23 = 099% or in 100 15 Bevo 21 = 0.90% 16= Wi v WH 18 = 0.77% 16 RAV AHA 18 = 0.77% 18 WE vWD 16 = 0.69% 19 Sve 1 = 0.55% 20= W+& v W+2 (opposite colour) 12 = 051% 20= +8 v B+8 (opposite colour) 12 = 051% = Wee vW 10 = Less than 1 in 200 = Wve) 10 24 WH v W 9 d= BHD v 2+) 9 Such statistics can be affected by style; for instance, a tendency to play for an all-out at- tack or to agree quick draws. So I'm not claiming anything dramatic in the precise numbers, only that they represent a convenient measure of frequency. There are certain conclusions that can be drawn from these figures. The most striking one 12 Statistics is that the most common NQEs occur more often than standard endings, except for rook end- ings. So why aren’t they given as much coverage in chess publications? Or shall I put it another way... How much time and effort have you put into studying king and pawn endings (which occur once in 40 games) compared to that put into rook and bishop vs rook and knight (which occurs once every 11 games)? Here are some other results: 1. All forms of rook and minor piece for each player are common. 2. Queen and rook vs queen and rook occurs frequently. 3. So-called double rook endings are common, whereas double bishop endings and double knight endings are very rare. 4. Certain combinations were much rarer than I expected: rook us bishop and knight and both versions of queen vs rook and minor piece, for instance. 5. Ifaplayer has two minor pieces he is most likely to have one of each. I believe that the relative frequencies I've observed by examining my own games will hold more or less true for other players of any strength, with the possible exception of out- right beginners. Why don’t you compare the frequencies in your own games or in a standard database? You'll see that in the introductions to certain chapters I've done precisely this to illustrate the point. 13 Chapter One Two Extra Pieces We have to start somewhere! Once we learn as a beginner that mate ends the game it soon becomes clear that it’s important to grasp the technique to deliver some basic mates. The first couple of these are mating with queen and king vs king and, of course, achieving mate with tivo rooks and king vs king. 11 A pair of rooks Few of us would have any difficulty with the following moves: 1 Eg3 &d5 2 Hg5+ Se6 3 Hh6+ Sf7 4 Ha6 be7 5 g7+ 8 6 Hb7 de8 7 a8 mate The rooks are used on adjacent ranks to restrict the opposing king’s movements and then to push him back until he’s mated on the back rank. A rook on an open board naturally forms a ‘barrier’ which the oppos- ing king cannot cross. For instance, a rook on h4 stops a king on c5 going to any of the following squares: b4, c4 and d4. The fourth rank is a barrier to Black's king. White doesn’t need to use his own king, nor worry too much about stalemate, and visualizing the virtual barriers formed by rooks along ranks or files is not particularly strenuous. The next example is already more in- volved. 1.2 A pair of bishops (see following diagram) With a pair of bishops more thought is required. The two bishops need to be on adjacent diagonals to form a ‘barrier’. 1 2d6 e6 2 Rg3 If we look along the two diagonals a8-h1 15 Practical Endgame Play and b8-h2, we see that Black’s king is re- stricted and that he therefore has no hope of going to the other wing, ae 2...8f5 3 be3 Le6 If White now attempts to play 4 &g4+ Black could seek some temporary freedom with 4..@d5. So, unlike in the case with rooks, White needs to use his king to cover some potential escape squares before push- ing the defending king further back. 4bdq Sfs 5 eds &f6 6 Aga The moment has come to switch diago- nals. 6...08g5 7 2d7 bF6 8 Lh4+ Further limiting Black’s king. This move only makes sense as White’s king covers the e5-square. 8.27 White’s bishops now form a barrier along the c8-h3 and d8-h4 diagonals. 9 bes Hg6 10 Re8+ bg7 11 Le7 Black now only has five squares in which to manoeuvre. 11...@2h7 12 Sf6 The king is brought closer in order to help with the mate. 12...2h6 13 2f8+ Gh7 14 &f7 Black is restricted to two squares and White’s king comes as close as possible. Now the mate just requires the bishops to reposition themselves for the kill. should always verify that your opponent You has a legal reply until the moment that you are poised for the kill. When mate is close, remember to be wary of stalemate! 14...@h8 15 &h6 Gh7 16 &d2 Lh 17 2bs $h7 18 2d3+ Sh8 19 23 mate In the final position the g8-square is only covered by White's king. A further illustra- tion of the point that the help of White’s king is indispensable. Although this standard mate holds few secrets for the majority of readers I’ve em- phasized it for a good reason: two bishops and king vs king is the most straightforward mate in chess where all three pieces are required. A good example of real teamwork! The notorious Bishop, Knight and King versus King 1.3 The right corner The NQE of bishop, knight and king against bare king has a reputation of being tough, as even some strong players have failed to mate. However, learning the required tech- nique doesn’t take long and serves as an excellent example of teamwork. I always show this technique to my pupils. The sense of achievement that they feel when they have assimilated it is a great confidence builder, as well as an ideal foundation for 16 them to be aware of coordinating their pieces in more complicated NQEs. I first came across the above position when I was about 14-years-old in A Pocket Guide to Chess Endings by David Hooper. The first thing to know is that the mate can only occur in two of the corners, those with the same coloured square as the bishop (so the ‘right’ corners in order to be able to de- liver mate with a light-squared bishop are a8 and hi). In this example White has already cre- ated a ‘barrier’; ie. the squares d1, d2, d3, €3, e4, €5 and £5 are covered by the minor pieces and his king stops Black from heading for the ‘wrong’ corner on h8. 126 Black’s king must now retreat and then White can tighten the noose. 1.24 2 Gh6 Sea 3 Qc2 Sq Or3..2h4 4 Odl g35 Sg5 etc. 4chs bg3 5 gs hfs 6 hfs Here 6 &d1+?! would be a mistake in view of 6..%e4. 6...8e2 If 6...8g3, then 7 &d1 tightens the screw. 7 Sf4 ber 8 he3 Sf1 9 Adi Sg2 10 Sq f2 11 2g4 be1 12 Le; Sf1 So far White has only used the knight to cover the d2 and e3 squares; now it comes across to cover f2 and g3. 13 Dd2+ Sg2 Alternatively, 13...@e1 transposes after 14.De4 Sf1 15 kd2. 14 Deq Sf1 15 &d2 (see following diagram) Now there is another barrier with Black restricted to five corner squares. 15...d2g2 16 Bez gi 17 Bh3 By switching to this diagonal Black now only has three squares left. 17...2h2 18 2f1 gi 19 Df6 Not just a ‘pass’ move to oblige Black to retreat; White prepares the mate. Two Extra Pieces 19...2h2 20 Sf2 &h1 21 Sg2+ eh2 22 Aga mate So once the defending king is limited to a zone around a ‘right’ corner, the attacking side needs to gradually tighten the noose whilst being careful not to allow his prey to escape. gl S&S “7 a a 7 erat ei a “? In practice the defending king will often have the opportunity to seek refuge in a ‘wrong’ (where there is no chance of mate!) corner. So shepherding the opposing king to a ‘right’ corner is necessary and perhaps the most important technique of all. The manoeuvre that is performed in the following example by White's knight is akin 17 Practical Endgame Play to a dance routine (i.e. the knight moves from e7 to g6-e5-g4-e3-g2). It may help to mentally draw a ‘W’ (from g6 until g2) and remember this technique as the W-manoeuvre. 1 Dg6+ &h7 2.2d5 A temporizing move, waiting for Black’s king to move to h6, its only square. 2..8h6 3 &g8 PhS 4 Des! After 4 £5 &h6 the only way to cover g7 is by 5 &f6. There are two directions for Black to go: the ‘run for freedom’ defence or the ‘docile’ defence. Let’s start with the simplest: The Docile Defence 4... 2h6 5 Dgat Bhs 6 Sf5 Lh4 7 Sf4 Shs 8 27+ Sh4 9 De3 Lh3 Now White ‘passes’ again to get Black to commit himself. 10 2e8 &ha Black quickly finds himself in the corner after 10...@h2 11 &2d7 wg] 12 &g3 &hi 13 (2 bh2 14 Afl+ kh 15 2c6 mate. 11 Dgat Sh3 12 SF3 Gh2 13 Sf2 Lh3 14 &d7+ Gh2 Black has two squares, so mate is nigh. 15 De3 Gh1 16 Le6 Another pass move in order to perform the final moves with check and thus avoid- ing any risk of stalemate. 16...2h2 17 Dfa+ Lh1 18 2d5 mate The Run for Freedom Defence 4.4 This move gives the impression that Black has escaped and is probably why some players fail to organize a mate in the allotted 50 moves. However, although Black is allowed to escape from his cell, he doesn’t make it out of the prison grounds... 5 Ss bg3 White doesn’t look as if he will be able to stop the black king reaching open ground, but he can! 6 Dgal S37 Aca! atatate ft A timely use of a barrier. White covers e2 with his bishop, e3 and {2 with his knight, and f4 with his king. 7...22g3 8 Rd5 Further restriction. Black must (reluc- tantly) go back to the h-file. 8...Gh4 9 SF4 Shs 10 27+ Sh4 11 Dez ..and now play continues as in the ‘doc- ile’ defence. 11...2h3 12 2e8 hg 13.Dg2+ Gh3 14 SF3 h2 15 Sf2 Gh3 16 2d7+ Sh2 17 Dez In order to complete the mating net the knight will be required to cover the remain- ing dark square h2. 17...@h1 18 Le6 Not forgetting to temporize if necessary! 18...2h2 19 Dfa+ Lh1 20 2d5 mate Despite the complication of Black ‘almost escaping’, note the squares visited by 18 White's knight. Yes, exactly the same as in the ‘docile’ case! Remembering the W- manoeuvre helps us in the process of ‘memorizing’ the whole technique. So a typical game would involve Black resisting being pushed, and then heading for the ‘wrong’ corner from which it takes 20 moves or so to mate. Nevertheless, by un- derstanding exactly what one needs to do and applying certain techniques and ma- noeuvres (that we hopefully now under- stand!), then from any starting position it should be possible to mate in less than 50 moves. The use of the white king, barriers and the occasional pass move are all typical in other endgames and NQEs. A few years ago, I had the task of de- fending against bishop and knight with my bare king in a tournament game where my 2250 opponent only had 15 minutes left. I naively thought that I would have reason- able drawing chances but he rattled off the moves and mated me in no more than five minutes! I was quite impressed with his technique and told him so, but he did admit to having had this same ‘ending’ only a few weeks previous to our game and so knew it well. After studying this technique a couple of times I'm sure that even much lower-ranked players should be able to mate in only five minutes. I know this to be a fact, as one of my students thanked me: when they had this NQE in a tournament game, they had no problems to mate. Two Extra Pieces So test yourself on your friends; it'll be fun! 15 C.Holland-G.Flear Uppingham 1987 oma maa me a a Vi aM. ate - 7 Y OG a "@ In this practical example I missed my chance. 71.045? A time-trouble miscalculation. Instead 71...\h5+! wins, e.g, 72 &g6 (or 72 kgs Axi6t 73 bg7 cb 74 h7 Dgd+) 72... xf6 73 h7 4d5! (now this is the right square, and this is clearly better than 73... Ag4 74 &f5) 74 {7 &c3 and Black has gained time to place his bishop out of range. After 75 &g8 Df6+ 76 keg? Dga+ 77 dg8 Dh6+ 78 f8 kc6 79 e7 &d5 Black will calmly walk over and pick off the h-pawn. Then I would have had the chance to test my own technique with bishop, knight and king vs bare king. 727 &xf6+ 73 bes and Black loses a piece. 19 Chapter Two One Extra Piece The advantage of an extra piece is significant in most positions. In the middlegame even with many pieces on the board, if one player has a piece more the odds are that he will expect to win, unless his opponent has some important compensation such as a strong attack or sev- eral pawns. In the majority of endgames and NQEs this is also the case, but there are special circum- stances which may complicate the stronger side’s task of converting his material advantage. These can be summarized as: 1, The stronger side has no pawns left. The weaker side has some good pawns as at least partial compensation. 3. The weaker side can construct a defensive shell, which in chess we describe as a fortress. 4, The extra piece is handicapped in some way, an example being the presence of a wrong rook’s pawn. v It’s important to know that the ending of king, bishop and rook’s pawn vs bare king isn’t al- ways winning. If the bishop doesn’t control the queening square and the defending king can make it to that corner then it’s only a draw. Throughout this book cases where the bishop doesn’t control the queening square of a rook’s pawn will be known as an example of the “wrong rook’s pawn’ (WRP), as opposed to the ‘right rook’s pawn’ (RRP) when the bishop controls the relevant corner square. In cases where the stronger side has no remaining pawns and any of the defender’s pawns are weak and virtually irrelevant, then we can make some conclusions about various NQEs: rook + bishop us rook commonplace and tricky to defend rook + knight vs rook fairly common but much easier to defend queen + bishop vs queen rare and generally drawn queen + knight vs queen rare and generally drawn two minor pieces vs one drawish (except for 2+ v 4 - see Chapter Six). 20 One Extra Piece I've decided to limit my efforts to those piece configurations that have some practical relevance, i.e. where both players have a rook and one player has an additional minor piece. The NQE of rook and bishop vs rook is notoriously difficult to defend, but in most cases should be a book draw. This is one of those fundamental technical positions that should be mastered by anyone who consider themselves to be a serious chess player. As it occurs so frequently, some book work now may earn a player many a half-point throughout their fu- ture career. In comparison, rook and knight vs rook is rarer and not that dangerous if the defender has plenty of time. The theory is less important in this case, common sense often being enough to save the day. The following example from recent practice is fairly typical Rook and Knight versus Rook 2.21 $.Volkov-M.Bartel Port Erin 2006 Black’s king is already restricted to the edge, but despite White’s valiant efforts he can’t win. 79...He3+ 80 SF5 Zf3+ 81 Df4 Ufa 82 Sgs Hgi+ 83 of6 Bf1 84 Ha7+ he 85 Sts Bg 86 Ha2 Efi 87 Sg2 Dh7 The defensive technique consists of checking or pinning the minor piece and keeping one’s king as far away from the op- posing king as possible. 88 Eg4 Hf2 89 Sf6 Hf1 90 &f7 Lh6 91 Hg6+ @h7 92 Bf6 (see following diagram) 92...Haa! Y Y a 6 a Switching to side checks to upset White’s mating intentions. Instead, the passive 92...h1? allows White a free hand in con- structing a mating net: 93 De6 Hh5 94 Af8+ Bh8 95 Sg6 Eh2 96 Deb Hg2+ 97 G£7 (but not 97 2g5? &g8 98 Hab $8 99 Zeb Eg3 and Black escapes... for now!) 97...&h2 98 Dg5 Bhi 99 &f8 Bh2 100 Bg6 Hf2+ 101 Ae7+ Lh7 102 Bh6 mate. 93 Hfs5 Ha7+ 94 &f6 Ha6+ 95 De6 Lh6 96 Bbs After 96 Hf Black plays 96...h5. 96...Ha1 97 Hb4 Bf1+ 98 Df4 Lh7 99 Sf5 g7 100 Hb7+ 2h6 101 Ha7 Ef2 102 Ma1 £g7 103 de5 Hb2 104 De6+ Sf7 105 Ha7+ g6 106 Kg7+ Lh6 107 Xgi He2+ 108 &F5 Hf2+ 109 Af4 Sh7 110 e5 Lh6 111 Seq Ha2 112 Dds Bf2 113 Ses Hert 114 Sf5 Hf2+ 115 Se6 Sh5 116 e5 Hert 117 Sf6 21 Practical Endgame Play Hf2+ 118 Le6 He2+ 119 Sf5 Rf2+ 120 Seq Sho 121 Ses He2+ 122 Hf6 Hf2+ 123 de7 Bhs 124 Seb Hers 125 SF5 Hf2+ 126 Afar $h6 127 Bg4 Bf1 128 Sf6 Lh7 129 Eha+ Or if 129 £7 then 129...<@2hél. 129...2g8 130 de7 &g7 a-%2 7 Ba oe 2 —— a zo -— Ay Here the correct defence is to move the king away from the mating set-up with 1...2c8!, whereas defending by coming to the c-file with... 1...8ea? .uloses! Let’s see why. We follow a study by Centurini... 2 Hd3! Black is now restricted to playing his rook on the c-file as his king dare not move. 2..Hc2 3 di Be4 4 ha Now we see why the rook was invited to — the attempt to escape with 4...c8? is thwarted by 5 Ad6+. 4..He2 Black therefore has to move his rook. White has thus managed to gain time to get his rook to a more flexible square. 5 Ada! b2+ Here 5...8c4 fails to 6 Bh8+ Bc8 7 Ac6+. 6 Sc6 Sas The only move to resist as 6...b4 loses to 7 Bh8+ &a7 8 DAbS+ Lab 9 Ha8 mate. The black rook is now stuck to the b-file in order to meet a check on the h-file with --Hb8. 7 Zh3 Again White temporizes in order to oblige Black’s rook to go to an inferior square. 7..2b1 8 Zh2 Hb4 9 Abs Hc4+ 10 db6 SB Or here if 10...c8, then 11 Ac7+ b8 12 ®Dab+ a8 13 a2! and mate follows: 13...2h8 14 2c7+ b8 15 Ha8 mate. 11 Dd6 Hb4+ 12 dc6 Now it becomes clear why White’s rook is better on the h-file than on the d-file — it isn’t blocked by the knight. The black rook is worse placed on b4 (than on b2, for instance) as it is unable to give any annoying checks. 12...a8 13 Hh8+ Hb8 14 Ac8! 1-0 Black is mated. 2.3 J.Piket-G.Flear French League 2002 (see following diagram) Although Black’s king is confined to the back rank, he isn’t in any serious danger as White has to spend time and energy to re- lease his own. 22 One Extra Piece 49..@e8 50 Af4 Hd2 51 ofa dd8 52 Ba7 &c8 53 Bel Hb2 54 De2 &bs 55 He7 kes 56 Sf2 Xb3 57 Ad4 Hd3 58 Afs Hb3 59 LF7 2d3 60 De3 Raz 61 SF3 Bag 62 Afs Lbs 63 Ad6 Hb4 64 He3 Ebb 65 Aca Rb7 Played in order to release the king from the back rank. As a general rule once a king has escaped from the edge of the board it’s not that easy for the attacking side to push it back again. 66 Hf8+ dc7 67 d4 Hbs 68 Hf7+ &c6 69 Bf6+ &d7 70 Hd6+ Ye7 71 Ha6 Bhs 72 Ae3 d7 73 Ads Bhi Va-Y2 White gave up trying to win. In positions where both sides have pawns and where the weaker side has dan- gerous passed pawns there can obviously be technical problems. 2.4 G.Flear-D.Norwood British Championship, Plymouth 1989 (see following diagram) Here Black’s pawns are annoying rather than dangerous, but these, in conjunction with Black’s active king and White's fragile pawns, enable Black to escape with a draw. Vi, 4,0 32..Hb8 33 Dc3 dq 34 Dbs+ Lxc4 35 Dd6+ ked3 36 Dxf7 c4 37 Des+ Not 37 xg5? because of 37...2g8. 37..&¢3 38 Ba3+ bg 39 He3 ZaB 40 He2 fs 41 Kc2 c3 42 &g2 He8 43 DAd3+ &c4 44 Df2 Bd8 45 Sf3 gat! 46 Lez Capturing the g-pawn is no better: 46 xg £3, or 46 dxgs Bd2 47 Bxd2 cxd2 48 213 &b4. 46...Hd2! 47 Zxd2 cxd2 48 &xd2 g3 49 Dh3 Yee Black achieves a draw because his king heads for the a-pawn. Although White can both defend and advance his pawn, the knight cannot participate and a draw results. If White had stubbornly played on a plausible continuation could have been 49... W Here Black has two good pawns and a fine bishop which can post itself on d5 or e6. White's rooks lack targets so it’s Black who. is somewhat better. 26...h5 27 Hea Re6 28 a4 SF8 29 He3 M8 Fixing White’s kingside pawns with 29...f5 can be answered by 30 Hd6 £7 31 a5, and Black will have problems unravelling without compromising his position. 30 a5 Rds 31 ga! Trading a poor pawn for a good one. 31...hxg4 32 Hxga Hd8 33 &c3 Hd6 34 g3 £51? 35 Hha Hd7 36 Hh8+ g7 37 Has a6 Although 37...b6 would probably be met by 38 a6, fixing Black’s a-pawn, this may still be possible as the pawn on a6 could later become a weakness. 38 Hees 6 39 Had8 Xh7 40 Zh8 He7 41 Hde8 2d7 Exchanging rooks is generally a poor idea when the bishop can’t cover everything on both flanks: 41...Hxe8 42 Bxe8 c5 43 Bc8 and something has to give, eg. 43...c4 44 $d4 winning at least a pawn. 42 Bd8 Bg7! The only move to keep winning chances alive. 43 Sd2 gs 44 Eh4 He7 45 Hd6 23 Finally activating the rook. 46 Hfq He2+ 47 &d3 Hes! 48 dq But not 48 2xf3?, which is strongly met by 48...2d1+. 48...2e4 49 Hh4 Hg1 50 hs! 2d5 It's White's turn to prepare a skewer trick: 50...xg3? 51 Exg6+ dexg6 52 Bg8+ and Black would no longer have winning chances. 51 Eh7 Exg3 52 Exb7 f4 Possible was 52...2g4+ 53 td3 f4 54 Bg7 h6 55 Ba7 £3. 53 Kg7 &f5 54 ba ge to10 /, O G, GY . Mi, re g 56 54...g5? With the benefit of hindsight it’s clear that 54...2b3 55 Hdxg6 Exb4+ 56 dc5 Eb2 was the way to keep the advantage. In prac- tice we all know that it’s more difficult to find the right way when your opponent in- sists on staying active and creating threats of his own! There is so much to consider and it’s no surprise that one can overlook a tacti- cal trick somewhere along the line... 55 bs! Creating a passed pawn. Suddenly it’s not just Black playing for a win! 55...axb5 56 a6 Ha3 57 a7 f3 58 Hd8 c5+? Sheer panic! Black should still be able to draw by 58...8f6! 59 Hc7 de6! 60 wc5 (but not the blunder 60 a8W? due to 60...Hxa8 61 Bxa8 c5+) 60...g4 61 a8W Hxa8 62 Hxa8 g3 63 Mp7 (2 64 BIS Rg? 65 Bxg3 FW 66 Exfl &xfl. 59 &xc5, Not 59 &xd5? 2d3+ (another skewer!) 60 Sxc5 Exd8. 59...2e4 60 He7 Sf4 61 Ef8+? The critical move is 61 Bd4!, when 61...f2? 62 Bdxed+ Lf3 (or 62...2g3 63 He3+) 63 He3+ Exe3 64 a8W+ is clearly hopeless, so Black would have to play 61..2f5!, but this still may not be good enough: e.g, 62 Hexed (bet- ter than 62 &b6?! f2 63 Bf7+ e5 64 Exed+ xed 65 Bxf2 g4 66 He2+ 413 67 Bb2 Bxa7 and a draw is inevitable) 62..Bxa7 which I originally thought was equal, but in fact Black is in danger after 63 He3! g4 64 Heed Had 65 He8! (if 65 Ef4+? Se5 66 HfS Exd4 67 He8+ df4 68 Sxd4 bg3 69 Se3 Sg? 70 Hf8 b4 draws) 65...@g5 (now if 65..xd4 66 &xd4 @f4, then 67 He4+! &g3 68 Ye3 and Black's pawns are stymied) 66 Bg8+ @h4 (after 66...8f5 67 Sd5 Exd4+ 68 &xd4 Sf4 69 Eis+ &g3 70 4e3 b4 White wins with the precise 71 Bd8! b3 72 d2) 67 exg4+ &h3 68 Egfd &p3 (68...g2 69 Hd2+ &g3 70 HIB is no bet- ter) 69 Bf8 and White should be able to win. 61...2e3? Two Rooks versus Rook and Minor Piece The wrong way. Instead, after 61...2g3! 62 xed Bxa7 Black has enough compensa- tion with his king so well advanced, e.g. 63 Bel Ha2. 62 a8W Hxa8 63 Hxa8 f2 64 Ha3+ Sf4 65 Bf7+ 2f5 7 Vu a atc =_M ( ae Sata! of a 66 Exf5+ 2-Y2 After 66 Exf5+ the draw was agreed due to 66..2x15 67 Bi3+ ed 68 Ext2 g4 69 &xb5 g3 etc. However, my opponent missed a fi- nal chance to win with 66 Hal! g4 67 Bdl!, e.g. 67...295 (if 67...g3 68 Hd5 tg 69 Bdxf5) 68 dd4 g3 69 be3 h3 70 BB dg4 71 Hise ebg5 72 Hd5+ &g6 73 te2 8 74 Bxb5 Ra6 75 Bits &g7 76 &f1 &g6 7 wg? etc. An ex- citing game where I lost control. In the following example it was the player with the rook pair who failed to make the most of his chances. 3.24 A.Yermolinsky-E.Bareev World Team Championship, Lucerne 1997 One of the difficulties facing White is what approach to take. Should he treat the position as a race between passed pawns, or should he first take care of his opponent's counterplay? 57 Practical Endgame Play Z Un, VU, ud, o “Y 44.aq?! Finkel believes that White shouldn’t ad- vance the a-pawn until he is fully organized. For instance, after 44 &c2 Hg2+ 45 &d3 Bg3+ 46 &c4 Hg? 47 Bb3 White holds back the f- pawn and is ready to advance his own passed pawn under very favourable circum- stances. 44...Se6 45 a5 Led7?! Better is 45...2g8 first, and after 46 dc2 only then 46...&d7, when White’s advantage in a continuation such as 47 Bh7+ &c6 48 Ef5 2b7 49 b4 is far from decisive. 46 Hb8 After 46 a6?! 2g8, White is likely to re- main frustrated as the a-pawn is devilishly difficult to push through, e.g. 47 Ha5 dc6 and Black will have a firm grip on a8. But White may well be able to win here! After the game Bareev pointed out that the strong possibility of 46 Bh8!, taking control of the eighth rank, wins for White: 46...{3 (or 46...Bf6 47 a6 £3 48 a7 £2 49 Bh f1W 50 Sxfl Exfl+ 51 &a2 Hf8 52 Kb8 etc) 47 Hf5! (taking care of the threat posed by the f-pawn) 47..igl+ 48 wa2 Bg4 49 Bh3! £2 50 Bhf3 with full control. 46...f3 47 Bf Necessary, but passive. 47...Ef6 48 b4 48 a6 is met by 48...22c5, eyeing a7 and £2. 48...c6 Y arn Lt, le, We, Y oe an 49 ge? A tame move. Instead, after the obvious 49 Hb7+ &c8 50 a6, I believe that White is winning. For example, on 50....2c7 why can’t White win with 51 b5! (in his notes Yer- molinsky only analyses the inferior 51 #2) 51...c5 (or 51...cxb5 52 Bel £2 53 Hbxc7+) 52 Bc2 £2 53 &d3; similarly if 50...f2 51 b5! cxb5 52 Bcl+ Mc5 (52...€d8 53 a7 wins) 53 Bxc5+ bd8 54 Hcl f1W 55 Bb8+! ded7 56 Bxfl Exfl+ 57 &b2 and Black cannot prevent a6-a7-a8. 49...8c¢7 50 Hg7+ &b8 51 gq &b7 52 dc2 Sab Yeh Black’s king blockades the passed pawn and both rooks are tied down. This is a good example of a phenomenon that I’ve noticed in my own games. One player is caught in two minds between (a) forcing the issue, and (b) concentrating in the first place on trying to improve his own pieces and restraining his opponent, before seeking a concrete solu- tion. I get the impression that Yermolinsky spent too much time trying to find a forced win, became confused and then didn’t have enough left to cope with the complications. My advice is that when a forcing varia- tion doesn’t quite work — rather than shak- ing your head and cursing the gods in disbe- lief at your misfortune! - settle for plan ‘b’ and you never know, the tactics may indeed all fit into place a few moves later when all your pieces are on optimum squares. 58 The following example features a fasci- nating battle between two top players where some difficult decisions have to be made. 3.25 V.Topalov-G.Kasparov Linares 1999 White has only one pawn for the ex- change but seems to have everything cov- ered. The key question for Black is how he should try and get his pieces activated. He can take control of the d-file, but this seems of limited value as the entry squares can all be covered by White. 29...n5 A controversial decision. Although this fixes White’s pawns on dark squares, it be- comes difficult then to open the wing under favourable circumstances. Stohl _ prefers 29...4b7 which he describes as more flexible. 30 g5 &b7 31 2e3 Hd7 White was threatening 2d4, followed by c2-c3 with a blockade. 32 Sc5 Yc6 33 2d6 £6 34 gxf6l? This move has been criticized by some commentators who prefer 34 g6! Hh6 35 Bgl, as then winning attempts such as 35.8205 36 ded2 ded 37 dc3 Hh8 are messy. 34..gxf6 35 Hga f5 36 &d2 Sd5 37 He; Stohl considers 37 #c3!? to be playable; e.g. 37..hh7 38 &f8 &e4 39 Bg6 when he Two Rooks versus Rook and Minor Piece doesn’t believe that Black can make pro- gress. 37...hh7 Preparing to battle for the g-file. 38 £8! Bhf7 39 2h6 Hh7 40 ge? A difficult decision to make on one’s 40th move. Stohl —- who, like myself, had all the time in the world to analyse this position! — considers White's position to be holdable after 40 £8 Bhf7 (bad is 40...8df7? 41 Bdl+ sbc6 42 Hd6+ bc7 43 Bxa6! when White is suddenly on top) 41 &h6 &c6 42 Bg6. Black could keep massaging away after 42...de7 43 &d4 &b5 44 &c3 He8, but there doesn’t seem to be any easy way to break down White's defences. 40...2b7! 41 2f8 41 3 is a concession which weakens the d3-square. Black would then regroup with 41...Bb8!, followed by bringing the rooks to e8 and d7. In this way White's bishop would be denied the chance to come back to defend via 8 to c5 and d4, and Black would obtain a decisive penetration with ...sec6 and ...2d3+. 41...2hf7 42 2d6 Bg7 Now White dare not cede the g-file. 43 gs Ebf7! After 43...Bxg5 44 fxg5 Bf7 45 @f4 Black cannot make progress. Now, however, Kas- parov threatens to capture on g5 and follow up with ...f4+. 44c3 59 Practical Endgame Play This clearly stops Black coming into d4 but, as we have already noted, it weakens d3. However, Stohl points out that alterna- tives are even worse: 44 Bxh5? Bg3+, or 44 Sf3 &d4 45 Bxh5 Bh7!?, or finally 44 &c5 Bxgs 45 hxg5 h4. 44...8c6! A surprising retreat, but Kasparov is aware that c2-c3 has also weakened the b3- square! 45 &f3 Sbs 46 Acs Heading for d4. Instead, 46 Bxh5 is again met by 46...2h7, when a sample of Stohl’s analysis that proves that Black wins: 47 Exh7 Exh7 48 dg3 dad 49 2c5 Lb3 50 d4 Eh8 51 @h3 Hd8 52 h5 Exd4! 53 cxd4 3 54 h6 c2.55 h7 clW 56 hsW Wh1+. 46...8a4 47 2d4 Bd7! Threatening a timely exchange sacrifice on d4. 48 2e3 &b3 49 der 49...2xg5 Now that Black’s king is in an optimal position, Kasparov finally releases the ten- sion. 50 fxg5 Weaker is 50 hxg5?! h4 51 #f3 h3 52 dg3 (otherwise 52 g6 Hg7 53 dg3 Exg6+ 54 dxh3 &c2 wins easily for Black as the f-pawn is lost and ideas such as b4-b5 are insufficient; e.g. 55 b5 axb5 56 a6 Sd3 57 a7 Hg8 58 h2 b4 etc), as 52...Xxd4! wins due to a skewer on the g-file after both sides have promoted. 50...Eixd4! Aiming for a favourable queen ending. If instead 50...f4, then White can mix things with 51 b5!? axb5 52 a6. 51 cxd4 c3 52 g6 c2 53 g7 ca 54 gow Wcqe 55 wes dc3! 4, “ a Black’s active queen and king work to- gether to attack White’s king and weak pawns. The fact that White is now a pawn up is a minor detail. 56 Wd8 A desperate shot was 56 b5!? in order to create a passed pawn, but 56...axb5! (rather than 56...Wxd4+?! 57 obf3 Wd5+ 58 df2 axb5 59 Wc8+ &d3 60 a6, when I can’t see a win for Black) 57 a6 b4 58 Wg3 (better than 58 a7 Wxd4+ 59 £3 Wxa7) 58...Wxa6 59 Wel+ &b3 60 Wb1+ dad seems to win. 56...Wd3+ 57 &f4 Wd2+ 58 &f3 Wdi+ 59 ke3 Allowing a sensational finish, but 59 £f2 doesn’t survive for long either: 59...f4! 60 Wc8+ ed2 61 Wxa6 (if 61 Wxe6 We2+ 62 gl £3 63 Wa2+ de 64 Wb3+ cexd4 and White is busted) 61...Wel+ 62 dg2 Wg3+ 63 whi £3 64 Wil Wxh4+ 65 &g1 Wg3+ 66 &h1 Wel! 67 sgl h4 and Black wins, as pointed out by Hecht. 59...Wg1+ 60 vez Or if 60 Sf3 Wfl+ 61 Ge3 f4+ 62 ved, Black has the flashy 62...d2!, intending 60 63...Wd3+ 64 &xf4 We3 mate! 60...Wg2+ 61 de3 f4+! 0-1 If, rather than resigning, Topalov had tried 62 &xf4, there would follow 62...@d3 threatening ...Wg4 mate, while after the fur- ther 63 Wg5 there is naturally 63...W£2 mate. Apart from Kasparov winning in such a stunning way, this game illustrates a num- ber of technical points. 1. Manoeuvring is often backed up by concrete analysis ‘in the notes’. A friend of mine who is noted for his liking of tactical play recently told me that he really appreci- ates endgames as they require even more calculation than middlegames! 2. Probing away, obtaining concessions, and switching from one flank to another are typical ways to stretch the defence. 3. Sacrificing back the exchange is one of the fundamental winning attempts. 4. For breakthroughs to work they often require that one’s pieces are coordinated to the maximum. 3.26 G.Kasparov-A.Shirov Astana 2001 Sometimes mates occur out of the blue... 34...52? An unfortunate choice. After the best de- Two Rooks versus Rook and Minor Piece fence 34...<2f7 35 Hig3 (if 35 Hh g6 36 Hdgi+ then 36...2£5 would be fine) 35...2h8! 36 Edg] Eh7, Black has good holding chances. 35 Hdq! 1-0 It’s mate on g5! To finish with, here’s an example of the player with an exchange less coming off best. 3.27 LYudasin-B.Alterman Haifa 1993 Black has positional compensation, as his dark-squared bishop is well placed: and his king will be a powerful piece after further simplification. 45...8.64 46 Lxc4 Xxc4 47 Hei b4! 48 axb4? Underestimating the danger. After 48 b3!, exchanging off the whole queenside, variations such as 48...axb3 49 Exb3 bxa3 50 Exa3_ g4 51 Ha8 &xh5 would be rather drawish. 48...2ixb4 49 He2 &xh5 50 daz g4 51 Hf8 oha Black’s bishop has a fine outpost on e5 where it has a significant influence on both wings. White’s rook pair are not able to do much against the inexorable advance of the g- pawn. 52 Sa8 g3 53 Xg8 Hb7 54 a3 Eb3+ 55 waz 61 Practical Endgame Play 55 txad4 is too slow: 55...xb2 56 Exb2 &xb2 57 Hb3 Le5 58 dc4 Hh3 59 Hd3 g2 60 be? 293. 55...Hf3 56 Ec2 Hf2 57 Ec7 Hxb2+ 58 a3 hs Using the g-pawn as a shield to avoid mate. 59 &xaq Ghz White’s problems are compounded by his out-of-play king. 60 Zh7+ &gi 61 Hh g2 62 Hhga thi 63 baz Hd2 64 Sb3 2d4 65 Hh4+ gi 66 Lhe Res 67 Nga Nd3+ 68 dq Bg3 69 Ngha tft 70 Sd5 giW 71 Eh1 Sf2 0-1 62 Chapter Four Queen and Rook versus Queen and Minor Piece This chapter will concentrate on NQEs involving queens, where one player has an extra ex- change; ie. W+E v W+2 and WE v WH. Although these positions are slightly less common than the analogous NQEs with rooks covered in Chapter Three, they often present additional technical problems. The presence of queens on the board gives the weaker side more hope. He may have the opportunity to gen- erate counterplay against the, opposing king, or at least use checks to frustrate winning at- tempts. If the queens stay on the board, play is often much sharper than many simplified NQEs where there is less fire-power on display. In fact, the side with the advantage will often aim to generate attacking chances against the opposing king in a more blatant way than in Chap- ter Three. In certain cases the extra exchange is less important than time, the player with the initiative perhaps being able to land the knockout punch first. Therefore, king security is high on the list of priorities. In a number of cases the rook may not start out as a particularly impressive piece. This may be a hangover from the middlegame where the rook was playing a supporting role. Now that the board is clearer, the assessment of the stronger side’s chances can often come down to his ability to activate his rook and thus become dominant when facing a minor piece counterpart. Despite the attraction of attacking possibilities, exploiting the material advantage may just be a question of simplifying to an exchange-up ending or, in rare cases, giving back the exchange for a superior queen ending. With pawns on one wing, my rule of thumb is that equal pawns augers a win, whereas if the player down the exchange has a pawn as partial compensation, then a draw is more likely. An important endgame technique can be seen in Radev-Pribyl (example 4.43), which is highly relevant to the latter part of this chapter. 63 Practical Endgame Play Queen and Rook versus Queen and Knight The knight has certain positive properties. In the first example the trusty steed covers his own king long enough to ensure victory, due to the damage caused by White’s queen. 4.1 A.Antunes-G.Flear Pau 1988 The relative safety of the two kings is more important than the extra exchange in this particular case. 27 Wg8 He1+ 28 Sf4 1-0 Black resigned, as after 28...g5+ 29 g3! there are no sensible checks, or if 28...Wic4+ 29 g3 and Black has to give up a piece if he wishes to avoid mate: 29...Wxe6 30 Wxe6+ Sxe6 31 Axel. In the following example Black's king is in the greatest danger — well, he is after White's next move! 39 &h6+! A strong blow that suddenly puts the black king in danger. 39...2xh6 If 39...8f7, White’s attack is also very strong after 40 &g5 Hd6 41 Wxh7+ fe6 42 Wxh3+ Sf7 43 Wh7+ heb 44 Weg8+ wf5 45 Dec. 40 Wxf6+ hs 41 Aca! White has an obvious perpetual but he can play for more with Black’s king being so open. As there are no meaningful counter- threats the white knight calmly trots across to complete the mating net. 41...0d4 Or 41... WE1 42 g4+. 42 Dxes Wf1 43 g4+ Exga 44 W5+ 1-0 Mate is forced. In the majority of cases it's the side with the rook that is most likely to be angling for a direct attack. However, in the following example he has to temper such admirable intentions with the need to keep his own king secure. 4.2 V.Topalov-A.Karpov Monte Carlo (blindfold rapid) 1999 4.3 Ki.Georgiev-A.Shirov Pardubice 1994 64 Queen and Rook versus Queen and Minor Piece 35 We3 Wc6 36 Wh6+?! This looks like an attempt to temporize until the time control. More incisive was 36 Wb3! dg8 (if 36..We8 37 Bb7 Ad8 38 Bb8 Wc7 39 c4 and Black is helpless) 37 Bxe6! (a case of giving back the exchange for a win- ning queen ending) 37...fxe6 38 Wxe6+ &hs 39 c4 and Black’s king still finds itself in a mating net. 36...g8 37 Wd2 h6 38 h4 Wf3 39 Ed7 Kiril Georgiev points out an alternative try in 39 Be8+, as 39..¢h7? asks for 40 Wxh6+! &xh6 41 Hh8 mate, but White will still have his work cut out after 39...Af8 40 Bd8 Wxf6 41 Exdo Wl. 39...g51? A valiant attempt to mix it up. 40 Exd6 gxh4 41 Wg2! Wxf6 42 gxha+ &f8 43 Wg3 Wf1 44 Bd2 Wc4 45 a5 Se7 The initial attack has been repulsed, and two pairs of pawns have been exchanged, leaving both kings rather draughty. White now has to regroup to create further threats while, at the same time, keeping his own king adequately defended. 46 Zf2! Wes 47 WE3 Wes+ 48 thi £6 An unpleasant decision to have to make; the text move holds onto the f-pawn, but now the e6-square is weakened. Instead 48...Wxa5 49 Wxf7+ 2d6 50 Wb7 would leave Black’s king with no hope of any pawn cover. 49 Ze2 Wxa5 50 We4 Wb6 51 c4 a5 52 Wh7+! Rather than 52 c5, which is less clear after 52...1Wb3. 52..8d8 52...8f8 is also hopeless following 53 Wxh6+ {7 54 Wh7+ 218 55 Wed, eg. 55...8f7 56 Wd5 de7 57 c5 Wa6 58 Hel a4 59 6 We8 60 c7. 53 Wg8+ de7 54 Wg7+ dé 55 Hd2+ bes The end is nigh. Here 55...&c5 fails to 56 Wel+ c6 57 Bd6+!. 56 Hd5+ Sf4 57 Wxf6+ &g3 58 Wg6+ Lh3 59 Wfs+ 1-0 4.4 E.Bareev-V.Topalov Sarajevo 1999 iy % Although Black’s king is very exposed, so is White's! 29 We6+ &g7 30 Hgi+ Dgé 31 We7+ bogs 32 We8+ og7 33 We7+ gs 34 We8+ g7 35 Wbs! A strong move, combining defence with attack. First of all Black is denied any checks, and White threatens h4-h5, as well as Wb2 exchanging queens. 35...8f7 36 h5 Des 37 Wh2 WF3 After 37...Wd3+ 38 We2 Wxa3 39 We7+ White forces mate. 38 Wc2 &F6 39 da2 bs 40 Hg3 Wa 41 We2 65 Practical Endgame Play Further consolidation. The idea is We3. 42...Wea 42 f4! Wxta After 42...2\c4 White can successfully co- ordinate his major pieces to hold off Black's threats and maintain a few of his own, e.g. 43 WE2 Wd! 44 Bg2 Wd3 45 Wxa7. 43 Hg21-0 The open f-file adds another avenue of attack. If, rather than resigning, Black had tried 43...e7, then at the end of the line 44 Wxb5 Wxe4 45 Wh7+ Ad7 46 Bg7+ &f6 47 Exd7 Wc2+, White has the convenient cross- check 48 Wb2+ to tidy things up. As we have seen in the preceding exam- ples the security of the kings is a major issue in this NQE. In fact, even in positions where other factors seem to be more relevant, it may only be a question of time before at least one of the kings is brought out into the open. 4.5 G.Flear-J.Pinter Montpellier 1996 Here I sacrificed the exchange to open up Black's king. 35 Hxf8+l? &xf8 36 Wh7 Wb6 37 Wh8+ Le7 38 Wxg7 2d3 39 Wxh6 Wxf2 40 Wf6+ tes 41 Wh8+ de7 42 Wi6+ Les 43 Wh8+ de7 Yaa In the following example appearances may be rather deceptive. 4.6 B.Gelfand-A.Beliavsky Linares 1990 Black has two pawns for the exchange and his position seems solid enough. How- ever, his pawns are not that threatening and White's king is very safe. So the potential insecurity of the black king could be a major issue, but for this to be significant White must engineer threats with the major pieces. 37 Bea Wd5 38 Xda Wc5 39 Hd7 Web 40 Wda Se6 41 Hd8 Dds 42 Wb3 It's interesting that Fritz 8 prefers Black here, as it can’t see anything concrete for White. However, in practical terms Black will have great difficulty defending against persistent threats coming from all directions. 42...a5 43 Wg3 De7 44 Wb8 Wb6 45 Hd2 We6 Perhaps Black could have tried 45...a4!. 46 Wd8 b6 In his notes Beliavsky mentions that 46...a4 can be met by 47 Wd4, followed by Bc2-c4 putting pressure on the a-pawn. If Black were to meet this plan by ...b5 then further weaknesses will appear on the sixth and seventh ranks. 47 a4! 66 Queen and Rook versus Queen and Minor Piece It’s often preparatory pawn moves that are the foundation of active piece play. This one stops Black’s queenside advancing and enables White’s king to have some wriggle room in case of a threatened perpetual. 47...g5 48 Wda ga Beliavsky rejected 48...f4 on the grounds that 49 8%c2 Wb7 50 3c3, followed by 2b3, would be too awkward. 49 Eda! The rook heads for h1. 49...lc5 50 Wd7+ It’s not in White's interest to exchange queens, since Black's centralized king would then be an asset! 50...de5 51 Wes bf4 52 Wb8+ dgs 52...€2£3? allows a decisive attack with 53 Wg3+ Se2 54 Hcl Wd4 55 Bc2+ Sf1 56 Wh2, as mentioned by Beliavsky. 53 Wds 53.04?! The only hope is to try and create some threats of his own; for instance 53...e3! 54 fxe3 g3, when matters are far from clear. 54 Hca Wb4 55 Hc3 Age 56 WK6 De7 57 We6 g5 58 Ec7 1-0 If 58...Wel+ 59 a2 Wxf2 60 Wxe7+ &f4, White just has to avoid allowing the black pawns to become too dangerous, and this can be readily achieved with 61 Wd6+ ££3 62 Hf7 be? 63 Was. 4.7 A.Dreev-V.Epishin St. Petersburg 2004 With White having the move, his king can retain plenty of cover and it’s not long before he brings up his rook to pressurize Black’s king. 28 h4 Weg 29 Ws Not so much hitting the b7-pawn as pre- venting ideas such as ...g3. 29...Wxd4 30 Hea Wf6 31 He8 Wf3 32 Wg3 Wf7 33 Wes bs 34 He7 Wg6 The queen and rook are ideally placed, so it’s high time to add a further element. 35 hs! Whe It’s also hopeless to exchange queens: 35... WE6 36 Wxf6 gxf6 37 Hc7. 36 Ws g3 37 Wf7+ &h7 38 Wfs+ dg 39 fa Securing White's king. Black’s knight is going nowhere and the only way to save it is to simplify into a lost ending. So... 1-0 By now I expect that, in order to assess these types of positions, you are looking first at how vulnerable the kings are! However, it’s important to also have an idea of whether or not an exchange of queens is de- sirable. 67 Practical Endgame Play 4.8 V.Akopian-V.Salov Madrid 1997 White has the move and he will naturally parry the threatened fork. In fact his king has reasonable pawn cover and can easily escape from perpetual attempts, whereas Black’s can be put under pressure on the back rank. Although the fact that Black only has one pawn for the exchange seems to be of lesser significance, it’s relevant to the fol- lowing play as he doesn’t want to play an exchange-down ending. 40 Hdq Was 41 We2 We8 42 Wc2+ og The fact that Salov decides not to play the difficult ending, following 42...Wg6 43 Wxg6t dexg6 44 Ed8 @f5 45 Bf8+ xed 46 87, enables Akopian the chance to play for an attack. 43 Wda Threatening 44 Bd8. 43...Wg6 44 Bd8+ 2h7 45 WES Aiming to double on the eighth rank, whereupon Black’s king will be driven into the open. 45...Wg5 46 Was We1+ If Black defends with 46...We7, then White can always play the endgame with 47 Eh8+ dg6 48 We8+. 47 Sg2 Wxa3 48 Eh8+ bg6 49 We8+ Sf5 50 Wf7+ &xe5 51 Hd8! Cutting off the king’s escape route. It’s no longer a question of how many pawns Black has for the exchange, just whether or not his king can survive the coming on- slaught. 51...g5 52 Wg7+ Sf5 53 £3 Further limiting Black's king. 53...Wa2+ 54 Gh3 gat 55 fxga+ 1-0 Any break for freedom with 55.4 would be short-lived: 56 Wd4+ £f3 57 Hfs+ e258 Hf2+, followed by 59 Hxa2 and mate. Black cannot try to exploit his material advantage from the following diagram, as his king is so exposed relative to White's. 4.9 G.Kasparov-A.Karpov World Championship (16th matchgame), Moscow 1984 zi RG ff Yi, WY The game didn’t continue for long. 32 WF6 Hd6 33 Wes Wc6+ 34 bh3 Wd7+ 35 gz We6+ -Y2 In certain circumstances it may be the strategy of one of the players to walk his king to another flank to get it out of harm’s way. Naturally if the defending player undertakes such a trek, it will probably be under desper- ate circumstances, as in the next example. 68 Queen and Rook versus Queen and Minor Piece 4.10 M.Adams-M.Gurevich German League 2001 Adams seems to be in trouble, so he tries a desperate leap for freedom with his king. 37 &f3 Bg7 38 Wg1 Wh3+ 39 dxfa! Zf7+ 40 ges Now Black has to play his fortieth move... 40...Wh8+? How many time do we see the critical decision on move 40? Instead 40...Wh4! wins easily, e.g. 41 g5 Wf4+ 42 dxe6 We7! and mate follows. 41 2d6 Wxd4 42 Wea Suddenly the white king is relatively safe as it’s sheltered by Black’s pawns. White even starts to have threats of his own, such as We5+. 42...Wxg4 43 &xc6 Bxf2 44 b4 da? 44... Hxa2! is better, but then White would probably try his chances with 45 b5!?, fol- lowed by pushing the pawn as far as it will go. 45 Wea Now White's pieces are so well coordi- nated he can even start to think about win- ning! 45...Hf3 46 &b6 Lh7 47 a4 e5 48 b5 HB? 48...Wg8! would be a better try, but then White can even exchange queens, as 49 Wxg8+ dxg8 50 dad! d3 51 Des g7 52 b6 26 53 &bS Hf8 54 dct! is unclear. 49 Wds5 f6+ 50 da5 Y J, , Vy V/A) The king has found an unusual, though very safe haven. 50...We2 51 b6 @h6 52 Ad7 Bg6 53 Dxes d3 54 Dxge? White can’t capture the d-pawn, but he can play an intermediate check: 54 Wh1+! <&g7 55 Axg6 and, with Black unable to give check on el, White may even be winning! 54...We1+ 55 Sa6 d2 56 b7 V2-%2 After the plausible continuation 56...d1W 57 Wxd1 Wxd1 58 b8W Wxa4+ 59 éb7 Wb5+ 60 da8 Wxb8+ 61 &xb8 dxg6 the whole board has been hoovered in no time at all. Although Adams's king walk wasn’t fully sound, it destabilized his opponent and was worth a try since the alternatives weren't very good. I remember a case from my own tour- nament experience where I failed to cope with my opponent's walkabout. I had the following wild position... Le Touquet 1991 69 Practical Endgame Play 0] r Jor igh a i Y AY AN — e “ bls aC V \» NN FR If Black can’t exploit the advanced king, then the white monarch can even be a power of strength, lending its support to White’s potential attack! 39...00g8+ 39...Wxb2 is met by 40 De5! (but not 40 e7?, which allows Black to consolidate his advantage with 40...Wf6+ 41 Wh5 He8) 40...gxf3 41 Wxf3 Wb4 42 27+ Ext7 43 exf7 We7+ 44 doxfS Wxf7+ 45 ded Wxa2 46 Wc6 and White should be able to draw. 40 Sxf5 gxf3 41 We5+ Eg7 42 We3 Wg2 43 Des Combining attack with defence! 43...Wh3+ 44 &f6 Wha+ 45 &f5 Whs+ 46 Bea f2 47 Wes Hitting the f-pawn and threatening Wf8+. However, Black can meet both threats. Instead, the tempting 47 @f7+ dg8 48 Wd2 meets with a well-hidden refutation: 48... Wg6+ 49 Be5 Exf7 50 exf7+ kxf7 51 Wxf2 We6+ 52 &d4 Wh6+ with a skewer that seems to have come from nowhere! 47...We2+ 48 &f5 Whs+ Cool is 48...h6! 49 W8+ #h7. At the time I must have overlooked that 50 #f6 runs into 50...Wxe5+! and wins, e.g. 51 fxe5 f1H mate. 49 e4 We8 50 Wxf2 Wxe6 51 Wes Wxa2 52 Wxbs Wa8+ 53 de3 gi 54 Wd7 Wa7+ 55 eq Wa8+ 56 Le3 Wa7+ 57 Leg Wa8+ 58 Bes Ya-Ya 4.12 G.Flear-Al.David Clichy 1995 am Y, a nia “ae wo 42 Y Black needs to get his king safe before he can exploit his material advantage. 34...2f7 35 Wh3 Wh6+ 36 Abs Hes! 37 Wh7+ Sf8 38 a4 Wes 39 Wh8+ we7 40 Wg7+ 2d8 The f-pawn is lost, but Black’s king is now as safe as houses on the queenside. 41 Wxf6+ Sc8 42 Ws+ kbs 43 Wha a6 44 cz Whe 45 Wg2 Hes! With the king safe it’s time to activate the rook. 46 a3 Bd3 47 We2 Wda 48 &b3 Hd2 49 We8+ 2a7 50 Wa4 Wf2 51 Ae4 Exb2+ 52 Sc3 Wh2 0-1 In the following sharp example only the player with the knight is trying to win. The logical result of such positions can often only be determined by precise analysis. Can you find an improvement in these sharp variations? 4.13 G.Flear-M.lllescas Cordoba European Team Championship, Plovdiv 2003 70 Queen and Rook versus Queen and Minor Piece 35... g8 My opponent suspected that the alterna- tive 35...WE7! was winning, but didn’t have enough time to work it out. Then 36 We5+ Wf6 (Illescas and others analysed 36...%g8 in Informator 89, but it comes more or less to the same thing) 37 We2! (weaker is 37 Wd5?! Ded 38 Wd7+ WE7 39 Wd4+ Bho 40 We3+ g5 41 Bgl Dxf2+ 42 dg? d1W 43 Exd1 Dxd1 44 Wd4, since 44...Wd5+! wins for Black) 37..He4 38 Bgl We5! (following 38...Wd4?! 39 g2 Dc3 40 We7+ @h6 41 Wi8+ &h5 42 W£3+, Black should allow the perpetual as 42..Wgd+? 43 Wxg4+ xed is refuted by 44 a5) 39 We3 Wd5 (here 39...Axf2+ 40 Wxf2 Wd5+ 41 Wg2 d1W 42 Bxd1 Wxd1+ 43 Wg1 Wxa4 44 Wc5 should offer White good draw- ing chances; Black’s king is going to lack cover in order to avoid perpetual check and the a-pawn is a problem) 40 &g2! (a neat way of limiting the damage) 40...2\c3+ 41 £3 d1W 42 Bxd1 Axd1 43 Wxa7+ and Black will have technical problems converting his ad- vantage. 36 We8+ 2g7 37 We7+ Sg8 V-2 The play leading up to the NQE is probably the decisive moment in the next highly complicated example. Black has a weak b6-pawn, while at the same time White is somewhat handicapped by a vul- nerable king. 4.14 L.Polugaevsky-V.Salov Reggio Emilia 1991/92 Ua mx Y Salov now ventured the following... 32...c8? Polugaevsky considered this speculative exchange sacrifice to be Black’s only move. However, there is another and a better one! He must have dismissed the unnatural- looking 32...Wd6!, but after the obvious 33 5, Black escapes with 33...2d5! due to the fork on €3. This tactical point would have enabled Black to obtain equal chances, while after the game continuation he was clearly worse. 33 Wxc8 Wxd3 34 Wea! A useful move hitting the g5-pawn and covering the d2 and e3 squares. The passive 34 fl? is met by the surprising 34...hxg4 35 hxgd Dxgd! 36 fxg4 Wxedt, when White can’t escape perpetual check under favour- able circumstances; i.e. 37 £3 Wxg4+ 38 &f2 Wxd4+ 39 bf1 Wdl+ etc. 34...We2+ 35 dgi Wxf3 36 Wxg5+ Lh7 37 gxhs If 37 b2, Black should probably reply with 37...@xe4, when 38 Wxh5+ @g7 39 We5+ dg6 is still messy. 37...Dxe4 38 Wg2 We3+ Black shouldn't exchange queens since 71 Practical Endgame Play the ending is hopeless: 38...Wxg2+ 39 sxg2 Ac3 40 Bxb6 (more precise than 40 Hal b5) 40...Dxa4 41 Bb7 &g8 42 &f3 Dc3 43 Abs Dd5 44 Ha3 and so on. 39 Gh1 Dg3+ 40 Ph2 Axhs 44 Hfal Concentrating his efforts on the most important wing. 41...Wxd4 41..f5 weakens the g6-square so White switches to the g-file: 42 Bgl Wf4+ 43 ¢hi Wed 44 Wxe4 fxe4 45 Eig5 and the rook is far superior to the knight. 42 Exf7+ 2h6 43 Weq Wd6+ 44 ogi Wes+ 45 Bf2 Dg7 White's task now is to organize his pieces in such a way as to free himself from checks and pins. a a ain e tee nett mate 46 Weg?! Polugaevsky gives 46 &g2! as preferable and justifies this with the line 46...WWic6+ 47 Ph2 Df5 48 Hg? Wc7+ 49 Sh Wel+ 50 Bgl Wc6+ 51 Wg2, obliging the exchange of queens. 46...e5 47 Wh4+ Dhs 48 Gh2 Wd6 49 Wea?! Here again White has a convenient way of escaping Black’s annoying checks: 49 2g2! e4+ 50 @h1 Wdl+ 51 Bgi Wf3+ 52 bh2 WIS 53 We4, as pointed out by Polugaevsky. 49...D4 Now with Black’s knight so well placed, it's not clear how to break down the de- fences. 50 Hc2 gs 51 WF3 Wd7 52 Xb2 Wda 53 Wea+ &f6 54 Wha+ &g6 55 Wi2 Wxa4 56 Wxb6+ 5 57 Wb7 Wd4 58 W7+ Polugaevsky suggests 58 Wh7+ dg5 59 2, but this still looks far from clear. 58...2e4 59 Wh7+ 3? Black survives with 59...2f3! 60 We2 e4 (60...a4?! 61 Ha2 e4 is less good in view of 62 Wb1, preparing to give some awkward checks) 61 a2 €3. 60 We2 a4 61 a2 Wd7 62 Ha3+ Ad3 63 We1+ Se2 64 Wes Wds 65 Wg2+ Wxg2+ 66 bxg2 e4 67 Exaq De1+ 68 &g3 3 69 h4 Sd2 70 Ba2+ Sd3 70...A\c2 loses to 71 Sf3 e2 72 Hxc2+ &xc2 73 dxe2. 71h5 Ac2 72 Ha8 e2 73 2d8+ eq 73...2d4 is calmly met by 74 £2. 74 He8+ &f5 75 Hxe2 “dq 76 Hd2 1-0 The quality of the king’s shelter also comes into play with all the pawns on the same wing. 4.15 A.Karpov-E.Bareev Linares 1992 ao UY A aoa 2, . RU poate Yi White has a well-centralized knight, but a weak second rank leads to his downfall. 47...2g7 48 Wi2 Wer Threatening ...28c2. 72 Queen and Rook versus Queen and Minor Piece 49 Wxh4 Hc2+ 50 Af2 gs! Seriously restricting White's queen. 51 Wg3 51 Wh5 allows mate after 51...We3 etc. 51...We1 52 h4 dg6 53 hxgs 53 fd loses quickly to 53...28¢3. 53...dexg5 54 f4+ exf4 55 W3 Hd2 Zugzwang. Black has no immediate threats, but what is White’s next move?! 56 &h3 Wha+ Black could go wrong even now: 56...Wxf2? 57 Wxf2 Exf2 is stalemate! 57 Wg2 Exf2 0-1 4.16 L.Van Wely-A.Shirov Wijk aan Zee 1999 Black is able to exploit White’s broken structure to steer the game towards a drawn endgame. 28...Dd4 29 Wb7 Cifuentes analyses 29 Hb8+ &g7 30 Wd8! Be2+ (but not 30...D£3+? 31 Shi! as Black fails to obtain a pawn) 31 &f1 Wxd8 32 Exd8 ®xf4 33 Hd7 e6 and Black should hold. 29...De2+ 30 Sf Wd3 30...Axf4 31 Wxd5 Dxd5 is essentially the same. 31 Ws Dxfa+ 32 Wxd3 Dxd3 It's drawn, since Black has an extra pawn and a solid structure for the exchange. There is no way for White to break through. 33 Zbs Ata 34 f3 Sg7 35 Sf2 g5 36 Le; e6 37 Ye4 Agé 38 Hb8 h6 39 Has Af4 40 ha Dg6 41 hxgs hxgs 42 Hal Afa va-% In the final two examples in this section Black saves himself with perpetual check. 4.17 G.Flear-J.Hector Antwerp 1994 37...Af3+ 38 Sf1 Axh2+ 39 &g1 DAf3+ 40 Sf Dh2+ a-e 4.18 L.Portisch-G.Kasparov Moscow 1981 les Y 73 Practical Endgame Play 43...WF3+ 44 Wg2 Dg3+! 45 hxg3 Whs+ 46 Wh2 Wf3+ 47 Hg2 Wd1+ 48 Wg1 Whs+ 49 Bh2 WF3+ %2-% Queen and Rook versus Queen and Bishop The first example already exemplifies how sharp these struggles can be. White has an advanced: passed pawn, but Black’s queen and rook are prowling and ready to move in for the kill. 4.19 V.Kramnik-P.Leko Tilburg 1998 Y GY Wy White’s king has no option but to try and escape the sinking ship. It turns out that there is never quite enough time to get the f- pawn through since, wherever he tries to hide, the hunted monarch is in constant dan- ger. 38 ba4 Exa2+ 39 &b5 We3 Equally strong is 39...2b2, as after 40 Wi8+ Sg5 41 Wxc5+ (41 £7 allows mate with 41..Bxb3+ 42 c6 WE6+ etc) 41...Wxc5+ 42 sexc5 &xf6 Black should come first in any race. 40 2d5 Wxb3+ 41 Sc6 Certainly a better chance than 41 &xc5 Wh6 mate! 41...Ba6+ Rather than 41...Wb8?!, which is less clear after 42 &d7!. 42 2d7 Wh3+ 43 2e6 43 &e7 is close, but not close enough; e.g. 43...1Wixh2 44 W8+ (44 We7+ goes down to the continuation 44.25 45 £7 Wc7+ 46 se8 and now the elegant little finish 46...Bb6! 47 (8W Eb8 mate) 44.25 45 £7 Wc7+ 46 Se8, when the most precise is 46...2f6! 47 We7 Wc8+ 48 Wd8 Wxd8+ 49 dxd8 Hho 50 de7 &g7. 43...Wd3+ 44 Ses If 44 &d5, then Black uses his king to eliminate the dangerous f-pawn with 44...

    You might also like