/
Text
WILLEM HAJENIUS & HERMAN VAN RIEMSDIJK
THE FINAL
COUNTDOWN
( ADOGAN
Hello everybody!!
Hola a lodos!!
"We are a group of chess fans who are producing chess material. We have several projects and ideas. We have members
from all around the world, belonging to different cultures and speaking different languages, all of us joined by our
common love for chess!." We hope you will enjoy our work!
”Somos un grupo de fanaticos del ajedrez, que estamos tratando de producir material de ajedrez, desarrollando
diferentes proyectos e ideas. Tenemos miembros de diferentes partes del mundo, provenientes de diferentes
culturas, hablando diferentes lenguas, unidos por nuestra pasion por el ajedrez!.” Esperamos que disfruten de
esta muestra de nuestro trabajo!.
If you are interested in joining us, or send any comments drop us an email at: thecaissalovers@gmail.com
Si alguien estuviese interesado en unirse al grupo nos pueden escribir a: thecaissalovers@gmail.com
Best regards!!
Saludos!
" Caissa Lovers'*
CADOGAN CHESS BOOKS
Chief Advisor: Garry Kasparov
Editor: Murray Chandler
Russian series Editor: Ken Neat
Other Cadogan books include:
AVERBAKH, Y. Chess Middlegames: POLUGAYEVSKY, L. Grandmaster Achievement
Essential Knowledge Grandmaster Performance
BRONSTEIN, D. The Modern Chess Self-Tutor POLUGAYEVSKY, L. & DAMSKY, I. The Art of Defence in Chess
BRONSTEIN, D. & FURSTENBERG, T The Sorcerer’s Apprentice SHIROV, A. Fire on Board
GELLER, Y. The Application of Chess Theory SHERESHEVSKY, M. Endgame Strategy
KASPAROV, G. Garry Kasparov’s Chess Challenge Garry Kasparov’s Chess Puzzle Book SHERESHEVSKY, M. & SLUTSKY, L. Mastering the Endgame Vols. 1 & 2
LIVSHITZ, A.
Test Your Chess IQ: First Challenge Test Your Chess IQ: Master Challenge Test Your Chess IQ: Grandmaster Challenge SMYSLOV, V. Smyslov’s 125 Selected Games TAIMANOV, M. Taimanov’s Selected Games
NEISHTADT, I.
Winning Quickly with Black Winning Quickly with White TAL, M. & DAMSKY, I. Attack with Mikhail Tai
For a complete catalogue of CADOGAN CHESS books (which includes the
former Pergamon Chess and Maxwell Macmillan Chess list) please write to:
Cadogan Books, 3rd Floor, 27-29 Berwick Street, London W1V 3RF
Tel: (0171) 287 6555
Fax: (0171) 734 1733
с J The 3
\ Final Countdown г
J your last resource in pawn endings V.
1V v rJъ
HERMAN CLAUDIUS VAN RIEMSDIJK
WILLEM DIEDERIK HAJENIUS
Dedicated to our pawns:
Christian Claudius, Marius Rombout,
Vinicius Paulo, Felipe Herman
and Willem Alexander
and the pawns promoted to queens:
Ana Vitoria da Paz
and Lucie Cornellie van der Schroeff.
CADOGAN
chess
LONDON, NEW YORK
First published 1997 by Cadogan Books plc, 27-29 Berwick St., London W1V 3RF
Copyright © 1997 Herman Claudius van Riemsdijk and Willem Diederik Hajenius
All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieva
system or transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic, electrostatic, magnetic
tape, mechanical, photocopying, recording or otherwise, without prior permission in
writing from the publishers.
British Library Cataloguing in Publication Data
A CIP catalogue record for this book is available from the British Library
ISBN 1 85744 129 X
Distributed in North America by Simon & Schuster, Paramount Publishing, 200 Old
Tappan Road, Old Tappan, New Jersey 07675, USA.
All other sales enquires should be directed to Cadogan Books plc, 27-29 Berwick St.,
London W1V3RF
Typeset by Eddie Sturgeon, Berfort Reproductions
Cover design by Brian Robins
Printed and bound in Great Britain by BPC Wheatons Ltd., Exeter
Contents
Preface to the English Edition.............................6
Foreword...................................................7
Introduction ..............................................8
Chapter 1: Applicability..................................9
Chapter 2: Key Squares ...................................11
Chapter 3: Appended Squares..............................17
Chapter 4: Blocked Pawns ................................20
Chapter 5. The Spare Tempo ...............................23
Chapter 6: Pure Logic ...................................27
Chapter 7: The Endgame ..................................33
Chapter 8: Foundations of the Three Ranks System.........43
Chapter 9: Horizontal Three Rank System .................45
Chapter 10: Vertical Three Rank System...................56
Chapter 11: Quite a Grind................................63
Chapter 12: Two More Beers, Waiter!......................65
Chapter 13: A "Near Passing” Grade For The Student.......69
Chapter 14: The Goalkeeper...............................72
Chapter 15: Practical Tips...............................78
Chapter 16: Centuries of Pawn Masters....................80
Chapter 17: Exercises....................................87
Chapter 18: Solutions to the Exercises .................106
Chapter 19: Bibliography and Index......................125
Preface to the English Edition
This book has been published originally in Dutch, with the title of
“Veldjes tellen”, which literally means “Counting little squares”. It has
been well received by the Dutch and Belgian press and public in general.
One reviewer unfolded the following scenario:
"There you are, playing against an opponent who just bought his first chessbook.
After missing several opportunities to finish him off in the opening and in the
middle game, you reach nothing better than a drawish pawn ending. What
happens? You lose! He had just worked his way through ‘Veldjes tellen’...” *)
The above served as food for inspiration for the present title: in summary
our work aims at providing you with a tool for tipping the scales in your
favour, when every other weapon from your arsenal had failed...
Except for the title there are some other changes as compared to the
original version:
- we have compiled a historical overview, providing you with a bird's
eye view on the evolution of this fascinating subject;
- we have created a new chapter, illustrating the art of defence, based
upon a recent game played in Cuba (Chapter 14);
- we have added many new examples which are highly instructive;
- we had to do some more work on one exercise (Diagram 99) as a
result from some deep analysis by grandmaster Gilberto Milos and
Herman, which changed our initial assessment of the position;
- and of course, we had to do the normal ‘polishing’, in terms of resolv-
ing any ambiguities or unclear explanations in the Dutch version,
many resulting from attentive readers and for which we are very
grateful.
We sincerely hope that the international chess community gives a warm
welcome to this publication.
The Authors
•) With thanks to Marc Ulenaers from “Limburgs Schaakblad”.
Foreword:
It has already been nearly thirty years since I bought the book entitled
"Grigoriev, artist of pawns". I do vividly recall what an overwhelming
impression one of Grigoriev’s studies made on me. The subject was a
“simple” pawn ending, by which the theory of the “key squares” was
explained. I devoured the book and due to studying it my love for
endgame compositions was stimulated. It therefore didn’t came as a
surprise to find this endgame again in the present book: Diagram 18.
In reality I find the composition, and specially the endgame composi-
tion, the prettiest element in chess, probably because I was not born to
be an active tournament player. The mathematical element fascinates me
a great deal.
The authors Herman van Riemsdijk and Willem Hajenius are good
friends of mine. I know Herman from the occasions of the many tourna-
ments he plays in The Netherlands. There we always find the opportuni-
ty to discuss other matters than chess affairs. From Willem I have the
fondest memories because of the famous, but unfortunately already
belonging to the past, S.W.I.F.T. tournaments in Brussels, where we
worked very well together. There he took charge of all technical matters,
providing me, the arbiter, with all the possible support so necessary for
conducting a tournament in a good manner.
When I was asked to write a few words as introduction to their work, I
didn’t have to give it second thoughts. I can wholeheartedly recommend
this book, as I am of the opinion that the authors succeeded very well in
exposing in a clear way a variety of pawn endings. Also, by illustrating the
many examples from chess practice, they manage to convince the reader
for the need to study closely these endgames. Many a half point has been
thrown away in the past just because the players didn’t possess the tech-
nique of “counting little squares”.
In my opinion both the composition lover and the tournament player
will find plenty of things to his or her fancy.
Nijmegen, December 1993
Geurt Gijssen
Introduction
Student:
Friend and team-mate from the “wild years” Herman Claudius, many
times champion of Brazil, sojourned once again on the Old Continent and
stayed over with us for a weekend.
It didn’t take long to remove the dust from the chessboard and to start
on the burgundy close to the open fireplace. But if you were thinking that
we would be spending the evening by analysing master games or by chal-
lenging each other over endless “blitz” matches like on previous occa-
sions, then we feel sorry in having to disappoint you.
This time we were searching for beauty in the simplicity of pawn
endings. Herman as the teacher, and yours truly as the keen student,
whose main duty, except learning of course, was to record the master’s
lessons for posterity.
Looking back I feel quite satisfied: during those few days, or better,
nights, I managed to learn more about pawn endings than during the full
twenty-five years before.
Which was of course a little bit my own fault...
Master:
Finally the moment is here. The sensation of a deep peace is nearly as
encompassing as when my own little pawns made their arrival. But good
heavens, what a long pregnancy was this!
Since my early chess youth I have always been fascinated by pawn
endings. The apparently simple logic of this special kind of chess game
puzzled me. Especially when I became acquainted with the Spanish edition
of Maizelis ("Finales de peones”) , around 1963,1 found this new love.
By chance I visited my old friend and former team mate Willem Diederik
right after the Dubai Chess Olympiad (1986). "En passant” I showed him a
couple of pawn endings and immediately his interest was aroused.
Until deep in the night he wanted to understand everything at once.
The next day, already neatly on paper, Willem had planted the seeds for
the present modest contribution. For his enthusiasm and working power
which has clearly been the main driving force I will always be very
grateful.
Chapter 1: Applicability
Pawn endings can be divided broadly into two main categories.
The first kind is the one where the main concern is to be able to count
in an exact manner. One or even both players have one or several passed
pawns1) and/or potential passed pawns. This becomes even more impor-
tant when the kings are outside the ‘square’2) of the enemy pawn. In
these instances one just has to count ahead to see who promotes first,
and it is therefore quite easy to see who will win.
If both players have passed pawns this usually means a contest in
speed running. Many times new queens do arrive on the board at nearly
the same time. Forcefully by that time we are obliged to abandon the
term “pawn ending”, but of course it is still of paramount importance to
judge correctly these just-born queen endings.
The second category features no passed pawns, or in case they do exist
they are being contained by the enemy king, so they cannot ‘run’. Both
sides are stuck and cannot advance, resulting in dead draws in the
majority of situations.
On the other hand it could also happen that the side having a clearly
better positioned king has an easy win, in which case a straightforward
analysis of the position will suffice for judging correctly the outcome of
the game.
But how to evaluate the not-so-clear positions and some of those
apparent dead-draws?
This book has been dedicated entirely to such situations. The method
here is to search for “key squares” (whenever the attacking king reaches
a key square the game is won, while the place of the defending king
doesn’t matter at all, nor does it whose turn it is to play).
In order to be able to locate these mighty key squares one has to start
by removing the kings altogether from our mind’s board. Where should
my king be for deciding the game? How can I possibly reach that square?
What measures must I take to avoid my opponent’s king being planted
on a key square?
1) Passed pawn: a pawn who cannot meet any longer any enemy pawn on his way to promotion and which
therefore in principle can march on unhindered to its promotion square.
2) Square: an imaginary’ square, having as it’s side the distance between the passed pawn and its promotion
square. In case the defending king stands in this square, or if he can get into the square with one single move,
then he will be just in time to neutralise the pawn.
So we “dream” before we really start any calculation task. Cor van
Wijgerden, a born teacher, stated with didactical accuracy that instead of
calling them key squares we should really name them “dream squares”.
Summarising, we have subdivided a grosso modo all pawn endings into
two categories: those in which key squares play a role, and those where
not. The fight over key squares and the underlying theory built around
them is our subject matter.
I Does this mean that we don’t care about other pawn endings? That’s
certainly not true, as any pawn ending does hit a soft spot in our “chess
bones". But it is only in this specific field where we feel we are able to
make a small contribution. Also, the reader will understand quite fast
that both categories do run into each other and that the boundary we
devised here for convenience reasons is not so black & white as might be
believed at first sight.
In many instances you will come across some sneering remarks on con-
ventional wisdom such as “opposition”, “distant opposition” and “trian-
gulation with the king”. These serve just as an aid to memory by simpli-
fying to the extreme a much deeper and richer system. The fact that this
rule of thumb does fail in many real situations, lead us to pursue our own
investigations which had started immediately after studying Maizelis’s
book on pawn endings.
The main purpose of this book is to teach. We are convinced that the
reader who takes his or her time to accompany us on the present inves-
tigative tour, will in the end have forged a new weapon that will periodically
bear sweet fruits when having to play in competitions.
Furthermore we sincerely hope that the reader shares with us the
beauty contained in the deceptive simplicity of this type of position,
finally resulting in a feeling of aesthetic appreciation and of understand-
ing towards all who have been engaged in this subject.
Chapter 2: Key Squares
Let’s start with basics, before turning to more complicated matters:
Key squares are all squares which, when occupied by the attacking king, result in
a won position, regardless of the position of the defending king and of whose move
it is.
Since by definition the occupancy of a key square results in a won
position, it is clear that the struggle in a pawn ending in many instances
is reduced to a fight for getting access to a key square.
Key squares are dream squares. Dream of your king being there and the
win is guaranteed, no matter whose turn it is to play, and without having
to care for the position of your opponent’s king.
Rule: The three squares located two ranks in front of a passed pawn are key
squares. If the pawn is already on the fifth rank or further, then the three squares
directly in front of the pawn are key squares as well.
With this newly acquired knowledge Diagram 1 suddenly becomes clear.
The three key squares have been marked.
The squares which border on the key squares are access squares.
It is clear that the defending party must prevent the attacking king
occupying a key square. He must therefore try to block the passage by
standing on an access square.
If for example in Diagram 1 the white king would be on d4 and the
black king on d6, then the one who has to move has a disadvantage: he
must give way to the enemy king.
This is what we all learn as being the “opposition”, but here we are
extending the concept and we will call these squares:
Blocking Squares
Where there is just one possibility ') for blocking the access to the key
squares we will name these blocking squares:
In Diagram 2 there are five key squares, and one set of corresponding
I) Strictly speaking, this is not 100% true. As we will see later, it can happen that two (or even more!) squares
hare the same “value” for blocking purposes. These "brothers of correspondence" are always isolated from each
other (not connected).
This time (Diagram 3) there are six key squares and two sets of corre-
sponding squares: d6-d8 and f6-f8.
Diagram 4 depicts the same situation as before, except that everything
has been moved one row lower.
Diagram 5
If we move the white pawn again one row lower (Diagram 5) a major
change suddenly takes place:
In this situation the squares d5, e5 and f5 are no longer "key”! Because
with for instance a white Ke5 and black Ke7 in Diagram 5:
After l.Kd5 Kd7 2.e5 Ke7 З.еб Black still has Ke8. This “walking back-
wards” was not possible in Diagram 4.
Of course we still continue to have the corresponding squares for the
three key squares on d6, e6 and f6, as indicated in the Diagram.
It is evident that if the white pawn is even further back (e3 or e2) the
situation does not change from the one with the pawn on e4: black can
still "walk backwards”.
Rule: Corresponding squares mean: whosoever turn it is to move is at disadvantage.
In other words: the weaker party loses, whilst the stronger side having the
move in general will not be able to win.
The mystery of Diagram 1 vanishes!
Without calculating any variations it suddenly becomes clear that
White (from Diagram 1) plays l.Kc2! and wins: through c2 and b3 he
arrives on b4 in three moves, while Black can never get to b6 in three
moves to block White off.
A correspondence has materialised with Black having to move,
meaning that White can occupy a key square without any problems:
l .Kc2! Ke7 2.Kb3 Kd6 (of Kd7) 3.Kb4! Kc6 4.Kc4 (correspondence,
with black to move) Kb6; 5.Kd5 and wins.
This newly acquired knowledge is already a powerful key to open many
doors.
For example, in Diagram 6 White can take on g5 in two different ways:
one is correct, the other is wrong.
Not l.fxg5 + ? Kh5 2.g6 fxg6 and 3,..Kxh4 where the black king has arrived
on a key square.
After l.hxg5 + ! Kh5 it is still tricky:
a) 2.Kg2? Kg4 3.g6 fxg6 4.f5 gxf5! (4...Kxf5? 5.Kf3 draw)
and Black wins.
b) 2.Kh2? Kg4 3.g6 fxg6 4.f5 Kxf5! (4...gxf5 5.Kg2 draw)
and wins.
The surprise is 2.g6! fxg6 3.f5!! gxf5.
White managed to “move" the key squares: with the pawn on 17 these
were potentially e5, f5 and g5; with the pawn on g6 the key squares
became f4, g4 and h4 but now they are e3, f3 and g3, just within reach of
the white king.
With the “rule for correspondences ” as a beacon we now find:
4.Kgl! (the only move; 4.Kg2?? Kg4 and Black wins; 4.Kh2? Kh4!)
4...Kg5 5-Kfl! (again the only move) with a draw.
The next example is also quite beautiful, and therefore, famous:
As Y. Averbakh and I. Maizelis point out in their book “Comprehensive
Chess Endings” this composition on Diagram 7 has been attributed erro-
neously by many authors to F. Dedrle, who published it in a mirrored
fashion without stating its source, in 1921.
Actually this composition resulted from inspiration in a real game where
a certain Dr. Cassidy showed the surprising winning method in 1884.
The only winning move is 1.КЫ! when Black still finds a vicious reply
with l...a3! and now White must reply with 2.b31.
But certainly not 2.b4? because in this way white would “push" the key
squares (the three squares in two rows front of the pawn) too far away.
After 2...Кеб 3.Ka2 Kd6 4.КхаЗ Кеб 5.Ka4 the mission has been
accomplished: the white king arrives at an access square without Black
being able to reach the blocking square b6 in time.
It should be stressed that if the black king would have been on f5
instead of f6, Black draws just in time with: 1.КЫ Ke4! 2.Ka2 Kd3 З.КаЗ
Kc2.
Chapter 3: Appended Squares
Here we are going to make a great leap forward in the construction of our
method: look at Diagram 8.
Diagram 8
White to play and win
From a game
Fahmi - Alapin
The first question we should ask ourselves is: which are the key squares?
Like we mentioned before, the key squares are the six squares in front
of the pawn, because the pawn is advanced sufficiently (5th row or
further).
In reality it is any square our king is dreaming of, regardless of whose
move it is or where the other king is located.
Because in the present position we also have pawns on a5 and a6 a
seventh key square is found: b6.
In Diagram 8 the black king is firmly planted on the blocking square
c7. If it would be his move the game would be finished already: l...Kc8
2.Kb6 and wins. But with White to move it is less easy.
The major task is finding through analysis, the relevant corresponding
squares.
It is quite clear that c5 and c7 form corresponding squares. A second
set is located at d6 and d8, something that our trained eye immediately
detects!
At this moment we would like to introduce the definition of an
appended square:
An appended square is a square from where the king can go to two or more
corresponding squares.
For White this is the square d5: from here the king can march either to
the corresponding square on d6 or to the one on c5.
For Black the square c8 is an appended square: from there he can go to
d8 as well as to c7. (The square d7 is of course not an appended square
as the black king is not allowed to stand there.)
And now we arrive at a major discovery:
Rule: Where there is just one single appended square for both parties, then these
squares also become corresponding.
This is easy to work out, because if for instance the kings are on d5
(white) and c8 (black) and it would be Black’s turn to move, then he
would lose immediately.
On l...Kc7 follows 2.Kc5 and after l...Kd8 white plays 2.Kd6 and so on.
Rule: With corresponding squares: whoever's move it is has the disadvantage.
Therefore, we have a third set of corresponding squares on d5 and c8.
Let’s write them all down in Diagram 9:
Correspondences:
(a - a): c5 and c7
(b-b): d6 and d8
(c - c): d5 and c8
Let’s now have a closer look at the corresponding squares “a” and “c”:
white can access those either through c4 or through d4.
Black can reach these same corresponding squares from the squares b8
or d8. What is the difference?
The difference is that the white appended squares c4 and d4 are next
to each other, while the black ones are isolated:
Rule: The attacker wins with: one appended square against zero and also with
two connected appended squares against one, or against two isolated ones.
Now it becomes easy to find the winning path: l.Kd5! - Black is forced to
play l...Kc8 (correspondence) and now White moves his king to one of
the appended squares, for example 2.Kd4 (or 2.Kc4).
In his turn Black must now also move to an appended square, for
example 2...Kd8, and at this moment White moves to the other
appended square:
3.Kc4! (or 3.Kd41). Black is now in dire straits: he cannot go to the
other appended square b8 and has nothing better than 3...Kc8.
Of course White replies now with 4.Kd51, dead on the correspondence.
Black must move, and by doing so is forced to give up the correspon-
dence, and hence the game:
4...Kd8 5.Kd6 Kc8 6.c7 Kb7 7.Kd7 Ka7 8.Kc6 (8.c8Q?? stalemate)
with checkmate in two moves. A minor promotion on the 8th move is of
course also sufficient.
For White this is the square d5: from here the king can march either to
the corresponding square on d6 or to the one on c5.
For Black the square c8 is an appended square: from there he can go to
d8 as well as to c7. (The square d7 is of course not an appended square
as the black king is not allowed to stand there.)
And now we arrive at a major discovery:
Rule: Where there is just one single appended square for both parties, then these
squares also become corresponding.
This is easy to work out, because if for instance the kings are on d5
(white) and c8 (black) and it would be Black’s turn to move, then he
would lose immediately.
On l...Kc7 follows 2.Kc5 and after l...Kd8 white plays 2.Kd6 and so on.
Rule: With corresponding squares: whoever s move it is has the disadvantage.
Therefore, we have a third set of corresponding squares on d5 and c8.
Let’s write them all down in Diagram 9:
Correspondences:
(a - a): c5 and c7
(b-b): d6 and d8
(c - c): dS and c8
Let’s now have a closer look at the corresponding squares “a” and “c”:
white can access those either through c4 or through d4.
Black can reach these same corresponding squares from the squares b8
or d8. What is the difference?
The difference is that the white appended squares c4 and d4 are next
to each other, while the black ones are isolated:
Rule: The attacker wins with: one appended square against zero and also with
two connected appended squares against one, or against two isolated ones.
Now it becomes easy to find the winning path: l.Kd5! - Black is forced to
play l...Kc8 (correspondence) and now White moves his king to one of
the appended squares, for example 2.Kd4 (or 2.Kc4).
In his turn Black must now also move to an appended square, for
example 2...Kd8, and at this moment White moves to the other
appended square:
3 .Kc4! (or 3.Kd4!). Black is now in dire straits: he cannot go to the
other appended square b8 and has nothing better than 3...Kc8.
Of course White replies now with 4.Kd51, dead on the correspondence.
Black must move, and by doing so is forced to give up the correspon-
dence, and hence the game:
4 ...Kd8 5,Kd6 Kc8 6,c7 Kb7 7,Kd7 Ka7 8.Kc6 (8.c8Q?? stalemate)
with checkmate in two moves. A minor promotion on the 8th move is of
course also sufficient.
Chapter 4: The Blocked Pawns
For practical reasons it is very important to know what the situation is
with regard to blocked pawns: two pawns of opposite colours facing each
other. To understand this, let’s present a few simple positions:
Diagram 10
The conclusion here is quite easy: (Diagram 10) whoever's turn it is to
move, loses the pawn and can therefore not resort to correspondence.
Whoever moves, loses the game.
Here (Diagram 11) the opposite happens: the side to move wins the
pawn, and the game.
For example l.Kf6 Kd4 2.Kf5 and we are back to Diagram 10.
Diagram 12
Diagram 12: whoever moves surely wins the pawn, but nevertheless the
opponent is able to draw the game.
For example l.Kg5 Kd6 (Black must remain passive) 2.KF5 Kd7!
3.Kxe5 Ke7 drawn.
Let’s investigate now what happens when we move the pawn couple
Diagram 13
one row down:
In this position (Diagram 13) the conclusion is: with White to move it is
drawn, but with Black to move Black wins.
If the kings were in the equivalent position as depicted in Diagram 10,
on f4 and d3 respectively, or if they would face the pawns similarly to
Diagram 11, on g4 en c3, then all conclusions reached in the analysis of
these diagrams still remain valid. But with the kings in Diagram 13 there
is a difference:
White to move: l.Kg4! wins the pawn, but Black holds onto the draw
by l...Kd5 (in the same way as in Diagram 12).
Black to move: l...Kc3! wins the pawn and the black king has arrived
already on a key square.
The conclusion is therefore: (of course with the constraint that the
defending king cannot take a pawn faster than the attacking king!):
If the attacking king reaches one of the three squares (left or right) immediately
next to the enemy pawn, this pawn will be lost.
We cannot always talk about key squares, because we have seen that
despite the fact that the attacking side always succeeds in taking the
pawn, the defending king is able to draw in some situations.
What we can do, is to describe this more precisely:
Rule: If the pawn of the attacking side is on the fifth or sixth rank, then these
squares are Key Squares.
This becomes very clear by enjoying the following composition: (Diagram 14)
Diagram 14
White to play and win
H. Fahmi
“Das Endspiel im Schoch”, Leipzig 1917
White wins by means of the surprising l.Nb6!+ cxb6 ( or l...Kb7 2.Nc4!
c6 3.b6 and wins) and now 2.Kg3 Kb7 3.Kf4 Kc7 4.Ke5 Kd7 5.Kd5 (cor-
respondence, with Black to move) Kc7; б.Кеб (the key square!) and wins.
The next chapter also contains a practical example on how important
the three squares next to each side of the enemy pawn are.
Further on, when we will be presenting the “Three Ranks System” this
same basic knowledge will be applied in a very ingenious way and which
literally results in far-reaching consequences!
Chapter 5: The Spare Tempo
One move to spare, or in other words: an extra tempo, frequently has a
decisive influence on the outcome of a pawn ending. For simple pawn
endings this is normally quite obvious: in a very straightforward manner
the extra move forces the defending king to give way and the attacking
king becomes master of the chessboard. But, this “free move” sometimes
produces more subtle changes in the position, as we are going to witness.
White has in Diagram 15 a golden trump in his hands: at his disposal
he has the tempo-move h2-h3.
Because of this extra move some squares, that up to now were not important,
suddenly become key squares:
Diagram 15
White to play and win
J- Kling
“Chronicle”, 1848
The key squares are d5, e5 and f5, because, if the white king manages to
get on any of these squares, the black pawn is doomed. This has been
explained in great detail in the preceding chapter. And two pawns always
win in such positions.
The access square to the three key squares is e4; Black has then the
blocking square e6.
This should normally be a correspondence, but now the extra tempo
h2-h3 plays an important role: with the kings on e4 and e6 White plays
h2-h3, and the black king is forced to give up the blockade.
For this very reason the square e4 becomes now also a key square, due
to the extra tempo.
This opens new possibilities, because, since e4 is a key square then d4
is also a key square: the black king cannot really block on d6 because
white will just play Ke4.
The c4-square is not a key square, as black can then put his king on e5.
We should now examine the access squares leading to the key squares:
e3 and d3.
That’s the big point: to find, by means of logical analysis, the relevant correspond-
I ing squares! That is, in essence, the approach we are advocating.
With the white king on e3, Black has two blocking squares at his disposal:
e5 and d5. For the time being we can therefore not talk about
corresponding squares.
With the white king on d3 the same situation arises: e5 and d5 are
Black’s blocking squares. It seems that there are no corresponding
squares, and that our analysis got stuck. (Of course positions do exist
where there are no corresponding squares!)
We still don’t want to give up yet, but instead want to concentrate even
more on the position, by trying to look at it from a different angle. Such
a new way is contemplating the “dynamic” h4 for further investigations.
If (a big if!) g4 was a passed pawn, then the key squares would have
been f6, g6 and h6.
If we were to plant the white king on g3, where should we put the black
king? Black should be on f6 in order to be able to block on time. Not on
g6, because then Kf3 comes and the white king marches on to e4.
In other words: with the king on g3 Black loses with the king on e7 or
e6 because of 1.h4! (Ke7 also loses because of Kf3 with the idea of occu-
pying e4 as we just saw).
I...gxh4+ (l...Kf6 2.h5 and White walks to d4 whereas Black cannot
use the blocking square d6 as this is outside the square of the h5-pawn)
2.Kxh4 Kf6 3.Kh5 etc.
So, the first correspondence has been found!: g3 - f6.
: With a white Kf3 Black’s king must be on e5: Ke4 has to be prevent-
ed, while also after Kg3 Kf6 is necessary. This is the second correspon-
dence.
Diagram 16 illustrates the corresponding squares once more:
(a-a): g3 and f6
(b - b): f3 and e5
Diagram 16
Now everything becomes crystal-clear: White has two appended squares
which are connected (f2 and g2), while Black has just a single appended
square (e6), in the Diagram indicated with a ★.
The right track is therefore l.Kf2 to the appended square.
Black is also forced to play to his appended square: l...Ke6.
l...Ke5 loses because of 2.Kf3. l...Ke4 loses due to 2.Kg3 and 3.h4.
But now White moves to the other appended square: 2.Kg2! and Black
could in principle already resign: he has run out of appended squares.
2...Kf6 3.Kg3 (the first correspondence) or 2...Ke5 3,Kf3 (the second
correspondence). Other possibilities:
2...KI7 3.Kf3 and 4.Ke4. 2...Kd6 3.Kg3 and 4.h4.
The next composition is also very interesting (Diagram 17):
Diagram 17
White to play and win
Neustadtl
1889
First we show the somewhat cumbersome solution from Neustadtl:
l.Kd4 Кеб 2.Kc4 Kd6 3.KB5 Kd5 4.КБ6 Kd6 5.KB7 Kd7 6.h5 Kd6 7.Kc8
Ke5 8.Kd7 Kf4 9.Ke6 Kg5 10.КГ7 and wins.
If Black remains passive with 7...Ke 7 then White wins by means of the
horizontal 3-row system (see further on).
Let’s now examine the position of Diagram 17 in greater detail:
The key square is d5 (because with the white king there he would use
his extra move h4-h5 in order to get to either сб, d6 or e6).
We discover two correspondences:
(a - a): e4 - d6
(сб or c5 are not sufficient due to l.Kf4 and 2.g5)
(b - b): f4 - e7
The appended squares for White are of course e3 and £3, while Black
only has d7.
White wins in the usual way, by moving from one appended square to
the other, posing an unsolvable problem for Black after he moved to his
first and only appended square:
Whilst in the previous examples it didn’t matter at all to which of the
appended squares he moved first, in this particular case he must make a
conscious decision:
l .Kf3! (But not l.Ke3? because of l...Ke5! 2.Kf3 h5! and Black draws!)
l...Kd7.
(Now l...Ke5 doesn’t work any longer: 2.Ke3 h5 3.Kf3 and wins)
2 .Ke3! Ke7 3.Kf4 Kd7 4.g5! and this decisive breakthrough decides
the game.
The Russian chess composer M. Sinar also arrived at this solution,
except that he marred it by starting with the completely unnecessary
moves l.Kf4 (which he even awarded an exclamation mark!), Ke7 and
only then to play 2.Kf3! After the preceding analysis it becomes clear why
his first moves are completely superfluous.
Chapter 6: Pure Logic
A quick analysis of Diagram 18 shows that the key squares are g5 and f5.
(May be this was not completely obvious to some, as up to now this issue
was never raised, but a key square doesn’t have to be empty!) Black can,
in principle, block the access square f4 by putting his king on f6 or g6.
Diagram 18
White to play and win
N. Grigoriev, 1922
If it were Black’s move he would lose immediately:
l...Kg6 2.e7! Kf7 3.Kx£5 Kxe7 4.Kg6 occupying the key square g6, as
we already know.
So, on Kf4 only Kf6 can be put up as a first line of defence: it is our
first correspondence.
And we keep searching for more: with the white king on h4 we see that
Black must stay on g6 and nowhere else, as Kh6 fails due to e7 and with
the black king on f6 White plays Kh5 winning the black pawn on f5.
So we have two sets of corresponding squares (Diagram 19):
Diagram 19
(a - a): f4 and f6
(b - b): h4 and g6
Each side has one appended square next to the two corresponding
squares: white has g3, and black g7 (not g5, because this is outside the
square of e6). If both sides have each one appended square this becomes
a new correspondence:
(c - c): g3 and g7
And again we discover newly created appended squares. What is their
"value”?
i) Between “a” and “c” white has an appended square on f3.
Black has only the g6-square between “a” and “c”, which
we had already given the value of “b". Therefore f3 gets
now also the value “b”.
ii) Between (the first) “b” and “c” white has the appended
square h3; its black counterpart (between g6 and g7) is
only f6 - h7 and h6 have both to be dismissed as they fall
outside the square of the еб-pawn. The square f6 has got
already value “a”, and therefore we also attribute value
“a” to the square h3.
We have put it all on the map of Diagram 20:
Diagram 20
And suddenly a very pretty appended square emerges out of the blue: g2,
between “a”, “b” and “c”.
It is easy to see that Black has nothing equivalent. Therefore the con-
clusion is very clear:
With White to move the position depicted in Diagram 18 is also won,
and the only way of winning it is: by moving the white king all the way back
through g2!
And this is the beautiful message we want to convey to our readers
with the method of the key squares: no longer a myriad of variation trees,
but just pure logic!
In a real game there could follow:
l.Kg3 (“c") Kg7 (of course also “c”) 2.Kg2 - on the appended square
with a sure win, for example: 2...Kg6 (“b”) 3.Kf3 (also “b”) Kg7 (“c”)
4.Kg3 (“c”) Kg6 5.Kh4 Kf6 6.Kh5 Kg7 7.Kg5 occupying the key square.
Black therefore gives up the pawn with 7...f4; but after 8.Kxf4 Kf6
9.Kg4 Kg6 10.Kh4 the white king enters inside Black’s territory, as
10...Kh6 is not possible due to H.e7. So our game would end with
1O...K£6 ll.Kh5 Kg7 12.Kg5 Kg8 13.Kg6 Kf8 14.Kf6 Ke8 15.e7 Kd7
16.Kf7.
There is another way to reach the same conclusion: between “b” and
“c” (or “a” and “c”) White has two appended and connected squares, and
Black has just one (respectively f6 or g6). So White has to travel through
the g2 square anyway!
The method of key squares is of course part of the weaponry of the
world champions.
Here we watch Garry Kasparov in action. After what we just saw it
Diagram 21
Black to move
Seirawan - Kasparov
Ni'&sic, 1983
White has tried to prevent Black penetrating with his king.
As Kasparov himself mentions in his book “The Test of Time”, a run
with the b-pawn will only bring a queen ending with an extra h-pawn,
which is impossible to win if the opponent plays correctly.
I...b3? 2.Kc3 b2 3.Kxb2 Kd4 4.Kb3 Kxe4 5.Kc4 Kxf5 6.Kb5 Kg4
7.Kxa5 f5 8.Kb4 f4 9.a5 f3 10.a6 f2 ll.a7 flQ 12.a8Q etc.
Kasparov himself explains the winning continuation from the game
with the standard and superficial terminology like “zugzwang”, “distant
opposition", and “triangulation”; but we are going to search for the
mighty key squares:
It is clear that d4 is a key square: with the black king on d4 the game
is over.
White must block on d3 if the black king is on c5, as it is in the
Diagram.
Blocking on e3 is insufficient because Black will play b3!, winning. The
first correspondence has been found:
(a - a): c5 - d3
Just something on our notation convention for writing down the corresponding
squares: these are always as seen from the viewpoint of the attacker, in this case
Black-
It is the first time that this issue surfaces, as up to now all diagrams
referred to compositions and therefore always as seen from the “white
side”.
Another key square is e5. If Black positions himself on d6 White is
forced to play Kd4, because Kf4 is too far away from the queenside.
So: (b-b): d6 - d4
Between “a” and “b” we find a new correspondence:
(с - с): c6 - c4 (or e3)
Let’s now examine the appended squares between “b” and “c”:
White has only d3, but Black is the happy owner of two appended
squares, c7 and d7, and has therefore a won position.
We have it all written down in Diagram 22.
The game continued with: l...Kc6 ("c”) 2.Kc4 (also “c”) Kc7 (one of
the two appended squares) 3.Kd3 (also to an appended square) Kd7! (to
the other appended square, and now white faces a major problem...)
4.Ke3 (“c”).
Of course 4.Kc4 Kc6 (“c”) or 4.Kd4 Kd6 (“b”) makes no difference.
4...Kc6 5.Kd3 Kc5
The same position as the one in Diagram 21 has arisen, except that it
is now White’s turn to move! б.КеЗ b3!
(Black still has to play carefully: 6...Kc4? 7.e5! fxe5 8.f6 b3 9.Kd2! e4
10.f7 еЗ+ П.КхеЗ b2 12.f8Q blQ 13.Qf7 + ! Kc5 [only move: 13...Kc3
14.Qc7 + , Kb3 15.Qb6 + , Ka2 16.Qxbl+ and wins]
14.Qc7+ [better than 14.Qxh5] Kd5 15.Qxa5+ Кеб 16.Qa6+ Ke7
17.Kf4 and wins)
7.Kd3 Kb4 8.e5 Ka3! and White resigned.
We still want to draw your attention to the fact that the correspon-
dence “c” is in fact a double correspondence:
(с - с): сб - c4
(с - с): сб - e3
It is clear that c4 and e3 offer White exactly the same possibilities: it
makes no difference whatsoever for the tactical breaks like b4-b3 or e4-
e5, having between both “c”s and "a” the correspondence “b”.
If there was any distinction between the possibilities emanating from
c4 and e3, then these of course couldn’t be both part of the same corre-
spondence!
A final and perhaps niggling remark: the exclamation marks given by
Kasparov on his first two moves are a bit overdone, as other “routes” to
the appended squares c7 and d7 do exist, and which are completely
equivalent, for instance l...Kd6 2.Kd4 Kd7 3.Kd3 Kc7.
Or were these exclamation marks only intended to signal the correct
plan?
Chapter 7: The Endgame
Vaganian - Sunye
A very interesting example for our method cropped up during the last
round of the Interzonal Tournament of 1979 in Rio de Janeiro.
Exactly the same position was the subject of a composition from I.
Maizelis in 1956, except that the colours have been reversed. The
“Encyclopaedia of chess endings" also mentions it (number 1025).
Diagram 23
White to move
Vaganian - Sunye
Rio de Janeiro, 1979
Both the Encyclopaedia and Maizelis’s book (ending 159) leave no doubts
whatsoever: Black wins. This is attributable to a misunderstanding as we
will demonstrate: the ending is a draw! Before discussing the actual
endgame it is amazing to see that White was heading on purpose towards
it (see Diagram 24):
Diagram 24
White to move
Vaganian - Sunye
l .Qf3 + ?! At this point many chess magazines were quite generous in dis-
tributing question marks, but funny enough, it is still a draw...
l... Qxf3+ 2.Kxf3 Kg5 and the starting position of Diagram 23 has
been reached.
White’s first move was a mistake in the sense that he couldn’t foresee
all consequences resulting from it.
In pawn endings it is not allowed to gamble, one must know them!
After l.Kf2 nobody can show us why White should ever lose...
Starting from Diagram 23, the first conclusion we can establish is that
a quick run with the f-pawn does not have any effect: for example l.Kg3?
f4+ 2.Kf3 Kf5 3.Kf2 Ke4 4.Ke2 f3+ 5.Kf2 (or even directly 5.Kei) Kf4 -
we have reached Diagram 25: where should the white king move to?
The easiest way to remember what to do in such situations, is that the
white king should always move to a square having the same colour as the
square that the black h-pawn is standing on.
For all cases starting from Diagram 25:
Diagram 25
Position after 5...Kf4
a) In the illustrated position 6.Kei! (or Kgl! as well) is the
right answer: 6...Ke3 7.Kfl f2 8.h3! etc.
But not 6.Kfl Ke3 7.Kei h5! 8.Kfl h4! 9.Kel f2+ lO.Kfl Kf3 U.h3 Ke3
etc.
b) If the black pawn were on h4, exactly the same would
happen;
c) With the black pawn on h5 White must play 6.Kfl!.
d) And now it becomes clear why there is no adequate
solution for the situation with the black pawn on h7: due
to the double possibility h7-h6 and h7-h5 it is as if the
black pawn stands on “both” colours at the same time,
and depending how White retreats his king, Black will
advance his trump one or two squares. With the pawn on
h7 it is therefore always lost for White.
For example (with the pawn on h7):
l.Kfl Ke3 2.Kei f2+ З.КП Kf3 and now:
on 4.h3 h5! and
on 4.h4 h6! etc.
l .Kel (or l.Kgl) Ke3 2.Kfl f2 and now:
3.h4 h5!
3.h3 h6!
e) For the sake of completeness: with the black pawn on h3
it is also drawn: this position is so bad for black that it
even doesn’t matter where the white king stands: Kei Kfl
or Kgl are all sufficient for a draw.
This short analysis means that the only possible way for Black to win is
by first advancing his h-pawn.
Four distinct formations do exist (we abstract the positions of both
kings, as we have been doing all the time with the key-squares method):
With the white pawn on h2 and the black one on £5 - which is our
departure position in Diagram 23 - we could have the black h-pawn on
h3, h4, h5 or h6 (the game’s position).
These four formations must all be analysed separately, before we can
give our final verdict about the position arising in Vaganian - Sunye.
I - First Formation: (Diagram 26)
Diagram 26
The key squares are
f3 and e3
Black cannot make progress, because against the access square f4 Whitt
has two blocking squares, f2 and e2, while against the access square e4
White also has these two squares at his disposal.
No corresponding squares in sight, as this only applies for one singlt
blocking square (defending side) against an access square (attacking side^
— therefore it is a draw. For example, starting from Diagram 27:
Diagram 27
l...Kd3 2.Kf3 Kd2 3.Kf2! Kdl 4.Kfl! Kcl and now:
Not 5.Kgl? Kc2! 6.Kfl Kd3 (or Kdl) 7.Kf2 Kd2 8.Kf3 Kei 9.Kg3 Ke 2
and wins.
But after: 5.Kei! Black cannot make any progress.
II - Second Formation: (Diagram 28)
Diagram 28
The key squares remain
e3 and f3
Due to the tempo h4-h3 we have three sets of corresponding squares:
(a-a): g4 - g2
(b - b): £4 - £2
(c - c): e4 - e2
Note that White can almost never play h2-h3 (see Diagram 9).
For Black’s appended square e5 (between “b” and “c”) White has no
fewer than four appended squares: fl, el, f3 and e3.
For the other appended square from Black on g5 (between “a" and “b”)
White has three: fl, gl and f3.
As an appended square f3 is isolated. Therefore we have a mutual
zugzwang with the kings on f3 and g5. It is a sort of correspondence, in
the way that a correspondence is always a zugzwang situation.
The f3 square is therefore quite dangerous for White, because if it
would be his turn he would lose, as he has to give way and Black “takes”
the correspondence.
Based upon the rule of the quantity of appended squares (and they are
even connected) the second formation is therefore also drawn.
It is also important to note that “c” is a real correspondence: if the
black king arrives on e4 the white king must go to e2: £2 is not sufficient,
because Black will forcefully take the winning position of formation I
after l...Kd3 2.Kf3 with the move 2...h3! (as after one move from each
side in Diagram 27, but this time it’s White to move.)
For example 3.Kf4 Ke2 4.Kxf5 Kf3 and Black wins.
III - Third Formation: (Diagram 29:)
Diagram 29
The key squares e3 and f3
are now surrounded by the
following corresponding
squares:
(a - a): g4, e4 - f2
(b - b): f4 - e2
Because Black has the tempo-move h5-h4 at his disposal the corre-
sponding squares have been “shifted" — a straightforward “opposition”
would lose due to the move h5-h4, when we would then reach the second
formation (Diagram 28). For instance in Diagram 30 Black cannot win
after l...Kd3 2.Kf3 h4 3.h3 or 3.Kf4 with a draw.
Diagram 30
What about the appended squares in Diagrams 29 and 30? Against
Black’s eS (between “a” and “b”) White has again e3, £3, el and fl, and
in response to g5 (between “b” and “a” White has el, fl and e3. (Not f3,
because then Black wins with 1 ...h4! as will be shown later on).
There is no doubt that the third formation is also drawn: as soon as the
black king puts its feet on an appended square White always has an appro-
priate answer.
IV - The Game Position (or “main formation”)
Of course the key squares still remain the same: e3 and £3. Because the h-
pawn has been moved one row backwards with respect to the “third forma-
tion” the corresponding squares face each other again. The two tempos h6-
h5-h4 cancel each other out, so to speak. We note down: (Diagram 31)
Diagram 31
(a - a): e4 - e2
(b-b): f4 - £2
(c-c): g4-g2
So far no change as compared to the second formation.
But... due to a tactical subtlety White also has at his disposal the
square e3 in case “c”. This is explained in Diagram 32: White arrives just
in time after l...Kh3 2.Kf4.
Diagram 32
This was of course not possible with the black pawn on h5 or h4. As said
before, the major difficulty is always to spot the true correspondences.
Such a “double correspondence” is very rare, and it is only because of its
presence that White is able to save the game: it increases the quantity of
appended squares for him, as we are about to show.
Against black’s appended square e5 (between “a” and “b”) White has
the appended squares on el, fl, e3 and f3, exactly the same as in the
second formation.
The black appended square on g5, formed between the corresponding
squares "b” and “c” finds its white alter-ego on the squares fl, gl and f3,
just like the second formation.
But... because e3 also has “value” “c”, the e2-square (which is located
between e3 and f2) becomes an appended square for White.
Diagram 33 clarifies this, the “o” marks the appended squares in regard
tog5:
Diagram 33
All problems have now been solved. We will first show the continuation
of the game.
Recapitulating (from Diagram 24):
l.Qf3+?! Qxf3+ 2.Kxf3 Kg5 (Diagram 23) 3.Kg3?? The "automatic
reaction” of playing for the opposition, which loses without a fight in this
position:
3...h5 (third formation) 4.Kf3 h4 (the second formation) 5.Kg2 Kg4!
(black plays on the correspondence) 6.Kf2 Kf4 7.Ke2 Ke4 8.Kf2 Kd3
9.Kf3 h3! (first formation) and White resigned. The text moves are iden-
tical to the ones described in Maizeli’s composition.
White should have gone to the newly discovered appended square e2,
where he couldn’t possibly lose: 3.Ke2H
There could have followed:
3...Kg4; 4.Ke3!
3...Kf4; 4.Kf2
3...h5; 4.Kfl (or 4.Kel, or 4.Ke3)
and Black cannot progress.
It is amazing that neither Sunye, nor his second Pal Benko nor
Vaganian and his assistants found 3.Ke2!!, even after the game had been
adjourned!! Even Maizelis in his composition only pays attention to
3.Kg3??.
This type of endgame has occurred several times in tournament practice.
See Diagram 34:
Diagram 34
White to move
Ribli - Ree
Amsterdam 1973
After going through the exhaustive analysis on Vaganian - Sunye it
should be clear that the present position is always a win for White, as he
still has the choice between c2-c3 or c2-c4.
For completeness’ sake we give the game moves below:
l.Kc5 Kd7 2.c4 Kc7 3.Kd5 Kd7 4.a5 Kc7 5.Ke6 Кеб 6.a6 Kc7 7.Ke7
Kc6 8.Kd8 Kd6 9.Kc8 Kc6 10.Kb8 Kb6 ll.c54- and Black resigned.
This same ending also appeared at the Chess Olympiad in Skopje, but
as a mirror image and with reversed colours (Diagram 35):
Diagram 35
White to move
Boey - Hamann
Skopje 1972
This is in reality the same position that occurred in the previous game
after White’s 4.a5; it is also the “second formation” from Vaganian -
Sunye.
This game continued with:
l .Kf2 Kd3 2.Kf3 h3 3.Kf2 Kd2 4.Kfl Ke3 5.Kel Kf3 6.Kfl f4 and
White resigned.
This surprising duplication was first signalled by T. Krabbe in his book
“Nieuwe Schaakkuriosa”.
Meanwhile the error from the Maizelis composition of 1956 has been pointed out in "Comprehensive Chess
Endings, Volume 4 - Pawn Endings*, Pergamon Press 1987, page 85, Diagram 232.
The analysis of the endgame Vaganian - Sunye was published for the first time in the Brasilian chess magazine
“Jogo Aberto", July 1985, page 39.
Chapter 8: Foundations of the Three Ranks System
We are going to start with a very simple game: two bare kings, like in
“Diagram” 36. The aim for the two players is the following: White must
try to reach the 8th rank with his king, while Black will try to avoid this
from happening. Furthermore, this “game” should be played on the terri-
tory limited by the columns to the left and to the right of the column
where the kings are standing (in other words, on the “f”, “g” and “h” files
in the Diagram).
Diagram 36 Diagram 37
White to move
After trying this out a couple of times, it seems that sometimes White
manages to “win” and in some other instances not.
To the uninitiated, this resembles more of a dice throwing game, some-
thing that depends primarily on “luck” as a random factor deciding the
final outcome.
Only a few people believe at first sight that after l.Kg2! White is sure
to reach the 8th rank!
Let’s analyse this “game” a bit further. Key squares are all the squares on
the 7th rank: if the white king manages to get there, the game is already won.
The 8th rank’s squares correspond with the ones of the 6th rank, as
black’s king has to be able to block frontally when the white king arrives
on the 6th rank. See Diagram 37:
Of course appended squares f5-f7 (between “a” and “b”), g5-g7 (“a”,”b”
and “c”), and h5-h7 (“b” and “c”) become corresponding squares as well,
and which we will label with “d”, “e”, and "f”.
Funny! From these new corresponding squares we
find a new trio, one rank lower, and which we had
already given the values “a”,”b” and “c”.
And we keep going, until the three files are completely
filled in (Diagram 38):
Diagram 38
Suddenly it becomes clear that l.Kg2 makes an end to
our little game... It is a continuous 6-key squares system.
The corresponding squares of such a 6-key squares system are always on the same
column and colour.
How should we play it? Quite simple:
The middle column is the “axis”. If the defending king moves away from the axis,
then the attacking king moves forward along the other side.
If the opponent returns to the axis, we also return back to the axis, but taking care
that we move to a square having the same colour.
For example: (Diagram 36) l.Kg2! Kh7 2.Kf3 Kg7 3.Kg3 Kf6 4.Kh4 Kg6
5.Kg4 Kf6 6.Kh5 Kg7 7.Kg5 Kh7 8.Kf6 Kg8 9.Kg6 Kf8 10.Kh7.
The task of the defender also becomes clearer: if it is black’s move, he
can easily hold his own by staying with his king in a limited 6-key square
area, for example f7-g7-h7-f8-g8-h8.
It is not important where the 6-key squares area is located: with three
key squares on a row, all three files are filled with corresponding
squares!
Another feature that strikes the player of this “game” is that it can be
played horizontally as well as vertically.
In real life this means that we have to search for three key squares next
to each other, be it on a rank or on a file.
In such a situation the corresponding squares extend all over the three
ranks (or files).
In most of the cases the “axis” is horizontal, and hence the naming of
the “three rank system”.
We will handle both the horizontal and the vertical “axis” separately in
the next chapters.
Chapter 9: Horizontal Three Rank System
Firstly a demonstration from endgames expert Yuri Averbakh:
Diagram 39
White to move
Y. Averbakh - B. Kogan
USSR 1974
We find three key squares next to each other on g6, g7 and g8. Or also on
f6, f7, f8; even h6, h7, h8 are key squares!
Because we managed to find three key squares next to each other on
the same file the complete 6th, 7th and 8th ranks become “corresponding",
and we can therefore apply the three ranks system. The 7th rank is of
course the axis.
The game concluded with: l.Kb7! (same rank, same colour as the
black king!) l...Kd6 2.Kc8! (marching forwards on the other side!)
2...Kd5 (trying aggressive counterplay, because 2...Ke7 З.Кс7 Кеб 4.Kd8
wins even easier) 3.Kd7 Ke4 4.Ke6 Kf3 5.Kxf6! (but not 5.Kxf5?? Kxg3
with a draw) Kxg3 6.Kg5! with a well-known winning position.
This ending has been thoroughly mistreated by Yudovich in Chess
Informant 17 (ending 26). There one could read:
1 .КЬ7 Кеб 2.Kc7 Kd5 3.Kd7 Ke4 4.Ke6 Kf3 5.Kxf6! Kg4 (5...Kxg3 6.Kg5
and wins) 6.Kg6 Kxg3 7.Kg5 and Black resigns.
From the above it is obvious that the commentator misses the point
completely: The first move is correct: l.Kb7!, but 2.Kc7?? is of course a
major fault as White has to play 2.Kc8 (or 2.Kc6).
And now Black supposedly played 2...Kd5?? while he could have
defended his turf perfectly with 2...Ke7! — on the same rank, and same
colour.
The remaining moves are no longer important. (The correct course of
the game was taken from the “Encyclopaedia of chess endings".)
How to conduct a successful defence is shown in the example of
Diagram 40:
Diagram 40
Black to move
It is not so difficult to find the three key squares on f8, f7 and f6.(Or g8,
g7, g6 - or h8, h7, h6). The same three rows of the previous example form
here also the battleground. Black has 2x3 squares at his disposal for his
defence: g6, g7, g8, h6, h7 and h8.
Black clinches the draw by l...Kh8!; all other moves lose, as then
White takes the correspondence. l...Kf8 is a false correspondence,
because Black does not have the f6 square at his disposal: 2.Kb7! Kf7
З.КЬб! etc.
After l...Kh8! White is unable to penetrate. For example 2.Kc7 Kg7!
3.Kd7 Kh7! (3...Kf7?; 4.Kd6! wins, again because Black does not have f6
available for his king) 4.Кеб Kg6 always on the same rank and colour.
If White attempts to play “around the system” by continuing 5.Kd5,
then Black will just wait on g7 and h7, it doesn’t matter on which colour,
until the white king returns to the 6th rank. At this moment Black
chooses between Kg6 or Kh6, depending on the colour of the square
occupied by the white king. For example 5...Kg7 6,Kc5 Kh7 7.Kb5 Kg7
8.Ka5 Kh7 9.Kb6 Kh6! and White cannot progress any further.
The next composition is very instructive. (Diagram 41):
Diagram 41
White plays and wins
A. Mandler
Prager Presse 1929
The key squares are here d6, d7 and d8, so that again the system is
formed by the 6th, 7th and 8th ranks.
White cannot win with l.c5 dxc5 2.e5 c4; because both pawns will
queen simultaneously.
According to “the system" the position is drawn, because at the
moment that the white king puts his feet on the 6th rank, the black king
will move himself to a square on the same rank and with the right (=
same) colour.
But... the subtlety in this composition lays in the fact that “the
system” will now be applied to direct the black king to a bad square:
l.Kg6! Ka6 (Black must “confess” his rank and colour) 2.Kg7! Ka7
3.Kg8! Ka8 (again the only move, as Ka6 or Kb6 lose due to 4.Kf8!
3...Kb7 loses because of 4.KF7 and 3...Kb8 due to 4.Kf8) 4.c5! dxc5 5.e5!
and the white pawn promotes with check!
White wouldn’t have won with l.Kg6! Ka6 2.Kf7? Kb7 3.Kg8 Kc8!
(Black still has all 6 squares for defence) 4.c5 Kc7! (4...Kd7? 5.Kf7! and
wins) 5.Kf7 dxc5 drawing: White no longer queens with check.
Many endgame compositions are born “by accident”. Here we want to
share with you an original piece of work coming into being:
Firstly a composition of Henri G.M. Weenink (1892-1931), who also
was an active tournament player, participating for The Netherlands in
four Olympiads. (Diagram 42)
Diagram 42
White plays and wins
H. Weenink
“Tijdschrijt,,r 1924
The key squares are f4, f5 and f6, because if the white king gets there,
white forces the swapping of the pawns on the kingside and subsequently
arrives first on the queenside, with an easy win.
So, a horizontal system, here as well with the fifth rank being the axis.
The solution is as follows: l.Ke4 Kg4 2.Kd5 Kh5! 2...Kg3? loses
because of 3.Ke5! Kg4 4.Kf6 while 2...Kf5 loses due to 3.Kd4! and Black
does not have the f4 square - same rank, same colour. After 2...Kh5! the
move 3.Kd4 doesn’t work because of 3...Kh4!
З.Ксб! Kg5 Black cannot go to the corresponding square g6 because of
4.Kxb5 Kg5 5.Kc5 Kg4 6.Kd5 (but certainly not 6.b5? Kg3 7.b6 Kxg2:
8.b7 f3 9.b8Q f2 with a theoretical draw!)
6...Kg3 7.Ke4 and wins. It was also not possible to play 3...Kg4 or
3...Kh4 due to 4.Kd6! Kh5 5.Kd5! (on the correspondence, with Black to
move) 5...Kh4 б.Кеб! Kg5 7.Ke5 Kg4 8.Kf6 etc.
4.Kc5! Correspondence, with Black to move. Bad would have been
4.Kxb5? Kg4 and both pawns promote at the same time.
4...Kg4 5.Kd6 Kh5 6.Kd5! Kh4 7.Ke6 Kg5 8.Ke5 Kg4 9.Kf6 and
finally the key square has been reached.
And now a composition of the Czech F. Dedrle (1878-1957), with
*'hom we have already been acquainted earlier on (Diagram 43):
Diagram 43
White plays and wins
F. Dedrle
“28 Rijen",1926
After the previous explanation the solution comes easily: l.Kc6! Kg4
(l...Kh5 2.Kd5!) 2.Kd6! and so on.
And finally, a “crossing" of both compositions:
Herman: “I was giving a course at the Pinheiros chess club in Sao
Paulo, when I put the following position on the demonstration board
(Diagram 44), with the intention of explaining Mr. Weenink’s creation:”
Diagram 44
White plays and wins
van Riemsdijk, H
Jogo Aberto 1985
“It dawned very soon on me that the solution from Weenink was no
longer applicable in the present position. While I became engrossed in
this problem I discovered several interesting variations, which I later
found partly back in the composition of Dedrle:’1
l.Ke4 Kg4 2.Kd5 Kh5 3.Kd6! З.Ксб?! Kg5! 4.Kd6! and we are back to
the main continuation.
Here White doesn’t have the c5 square, as was the case in the
Weenink’s ending with a tempo less, but not 4.Kc7? Kf5! with a draw:
5.Kd6 Ke4! (5...Kf6? 6.Kd5 Kf5 7.Kd4 etc. as Black does not have the six
squares at his disposal: f4 is occupied)
6.Кеб Kd4! 7.Kf5 Kc5 8.Kxf4 Kxb5 9.g4 Kc6 and the king gets inside
the square of the pawn.
3...Kh6 4.Kc7! Kh5! 4...Kg7 4...Kh7 and 4...Kg6 all lose because of
5.Kxb6 and after 4...Kg5 we reach the ending of Dedrle.
5.Kd7! 5.Kxb6 Kg4 6.Kc5 Kg3 7.b6 Kxg2 8.b7 f3 9.b8Q f2 is again a
draw.
5.Кеб?! Kg5! (see the explanation by the third move) and White has
nearly to start all over again.
5...Kg5 No other choice for Black. Both 5...Kg4 as well as 5...Kh4 lose
because of б.Кеб!. On the other hand, after 5...Kh6 6.Kd6 or 5...Kg6
6.Кеб! White conquers a key square.
б.Ксб! But not 6.Ke7? Kf5 with a draw: 7.Kf7 Ke5 8.Kg6 Kd5 9.Kf5
Kc5 10.Kxf4 Kxb5 H.g4 Kc6! etc.
The remainder of the solution is due exclusively to Dedrle: 6...Kh5
7.Kd5! Kh4 8.Ke6 Kg5 9.Ke5 Kg4 10.Kf6 Kh4 ll.K£5 Kg3 12.Kg5 and
wins.
An example from my own practice: (Diagram 45) pointing out that one
should always be aware of a sudden appearance of the three ranks system:
Diagram 45
White to move
van Riemsdijk, H-Trois
Championship of Brazil, Curitiba 1977
Although White has an extra pawn he can only win if he manages to get
nis king to the other side.
l.Ke2 Rai 2.KI2 Kf4 3.R£6+! Ke5 (or 3...Ke4 4.Kg3) 4.Rc6 Ra2
5.Ke3! But not 5.Rxc5+ Kd6 6.Rxc4 (6.Rb5 Kc6 7.Rb4 Kc5 draw)
6...Rxb2+ 7.Ke3 Ra2 8.Rh4 Kc5 9.Kd3 Kb6 10.Rh6+ Kb5 and it is very
hard for White to make any progress.
5...Kd5 Not 5...Rxb2 6.Rxc5+ Kd6 7.Ra5 Rb8 8.a7 Ra8 9.Kd4 and
wins.
6.Rb6 Ke5 7.Kf3 Rai On 7...Kf5 there is 8.Rc6! Ra5 9.a7 and wins.
8.Kg4 Rgl+ 9.Kh5 Kd5 Black tries now to cut off the king in a
different manner.
10.Kh6 Ke4 ll.Rb8 Rai 12.Rb6 Here I had calculated the following
variation: 12.Ra8 Kd5 13.a7 Kc6 14.Rc8+ Kb7 15.a8Q+Rxa8 16.Rxa8
Kxa8
Diagram 46
White to move
(Analysis-Diagram)
(Analysis-Diagram 46:) An ending has emerged by which the key squares
c4, c5, c6 and c7 produce an advantageous three rank system on the 5th,
6th and 7th ranks. Winning would then be just a matter of technique,
with 17.Kg6 Ka7 18.Kf5! Kb6! 19.Kf6! Ka5 2O.Ke7! and Black is lost.
In case of 2O...Ka4 21.Kd6 and Black loses the pawn race, and if
2O...Ka6 21.Кеб! Ka5 22.Kd7 Kb6 23.Kd6 and White arrives on the next
move at a key square.
But... fortunately enough I saw in time that after 12.Ra8? Black replies
with 12...Kd3! 13.a7 Kc2 14.Kg5 Kxb2! 15.Rb8+ Kxc3 16.a8Q Rxa8
17.Rxa8 Kd3! and draws.
1 2...Rgl 13.Rb7! Rai 14.a7 Kd5 At this moment an active defence is
no longer sufficient: 14...Kd3 15.Kg5! Kc2 16.Kf4 Rxa7 17.Rxa7 Kxb2
18.КеЗ Kxc3 19.Rc7 and wins.
15 .Kg7 Kc6 16.RF7 Kb6 17.Kf8 Rhl If 17...Rxa7? 18.Rxa7 Kxa7
19.Ke7! like later in the game, winning.
18 .Ke8 Rh8+?! More subtle would have been 18...Rel+ hoping for
19.Re7?? Rxe74- 2O.Kxe7 Kxa7 with a draw.
But in this case 19.Kd8 Rhl 2O.Re7 Rai 21.Kc8 Rhl 22.Rd7 Rai
23.Kb8 Rhl 24.RB7+ would also have won.
19 .Rf8 Rxf8+ 2O.Kxf8 Kxa7 The only thing White is not allowed to
do in case of 2O...Kb7 is to respond with 21.Ke7?? because of Kxa7! with
a draw...
See Diagram 47
Diagram 47
White to move
21.Ke7 Ka6 22.Ke6! Ka5 23.Kd7 and Black resigned.
To end this chapter we would like to illustrate the superb creativity of
ex-world champion Mikhail Botvinnik in a very pretty example of the hor-
izontal three rank system: see Diagram 48:
Diagram 48
For the time being we have left the kings off the board, and we start
instead with the logical analysis resulting from the given pawn structure.
If White on his first move could take with l.Kxd5, then Black would
draw with l...Kd7.
This is because after 2.Kc5 Kc7 3.d5 Kd7 4.Kb6 Kd6 Black can hold
to the draw, as White has to lose time by taking the two pawns.
If we remove the pawn on a6 however, then the capture on d5 would
be sufficient for winning. To accomplish the elimination of аб the key
squares are a8, a7 and аб.
These key squares could also be b8, b7 and b6, or c8, c7 and сб, or even
d8, d7 and d6, but not e8, e7, еб, as there the black king would block on
respectively c8, c7, сб.
In any case, this creates the three rank system on the 8th, 7th and 6th
ranks.
With the white king on e5 Black must be either on c7 or e7, to avoid
at the same time the penetration of the white king on the key square d6,
as well as to be able to answer white’s Kxd5 with Kd7.
Due to this special need in having to move the black king to d7 after a
white Kxd5, corresponding squares are created on the 5th rank which are
projected from the 7th rank, as shown in Diagram 48.
In Botvinnik’s original composition, published in 1939 the white king
was located on g5, and the black one on b7 (Diagram 49).
Diagram 49
White to move
M. Botvinnik
1939
White wins because after l.KfS Kc7 2.Ke5 Black runs out of good moves.
He cannot allow White access to the key square d6, but 2...Kd7 loses
immediately due to 3.Kxd5 where White with his next move goes to one
of the new key squares c6 or еб. Also 2...Kc6 loses easily after З.Кеб Kc7
4.Ke7! and the white king arrives at a key square.
Another very interesting position would have arisen if he had put the
white king on g5 and the black king on a7 (Diagram 50):
Diagram 50
White to move
Here l.Kf5? does not solve the problem as l...Kb7 draws immediately,
for example 2.Ke5 Kc7! З.Кеб Кеб and Black has all six squares under
control.
The funny thing is that in this position the black pawn on a6, due to
which Black saves the game when White takes on d5, makes him lose
here after l.Kg6!. Black does not have the so much needed ah square
which would grant him a draw according to the three rank system.
A possible continuation could be: l...Ka8 2.Kf6 On the other side of the
axis marching forward!
2...Kb7 3.KF7 Kc8 4.Ke6 Kc7 5.Ke7 Kc6 6.Kd8 Kd6 7.Kc8 Кеб Or
7...Kc6 8.Kb8 Kb6 9.Ka8
8.Kb7 Black’s last possibility for holding his position is an active defence:
8...K£5 9.Kb6 And surely not 9.Kxa6? Ke4; where both pawns queen at
the same time.
9...Кеб 9...Ke4 loses due to 10.Kc5 and 9,..Kf4 as well, because of Ю.Ксб
as explained in Chapter 4.
Ю.Кхаб Kf5 at this moment the most accurate move is ll.Kb5 by which
White wins both the “d” and the “a" pawns.
Chapter 10: Vertical Three Rank System
In trying to apply the three rank system in a VERTICAL fashion one has
to overcome severe obstacles. See Diagram 51:
The key squares are Ьб, сб, d6 and also f6, g6 and h6.
In theory we could expect to be able to apply the system vertically, for
instance across the columns b, c, and d.
Unfortunately the existence of the pawns on e5 and e6 “spoil the
system”, because the squares d6, d5, f6 and f5 are in their firing range,
making it forbidden territory for wandering kings.
Corresponding squares are for example b5 and b7, or c5 and c7, but for
the appended squares c4 and b4 Black has c8 and b8. Therefore the
system doesn’t work this way.
But Diagram 52 illustrates how
the system can be made
“usable” vertically:
m 52
White to move
- Petrov
Kemeri, 1937
White is to move ... but he resigns instead! For good reasons, because the
only move that could possibly create some problem for Black is l.g4.
On any other move black replies with l...g5 2.h5 g4 and the white
pawns on the kingside have no defence against the black king.
Let’s see what happens after l.g4 (Diagram 53):
Here the key squares are c4, d4, e4 and f4. The three rows system is
therefore applicable across the c, d, and e files. Not on the f-file, because
Black has no landing rights on the f5 square (with the white pawn on g4).
Black wins because white cannot utilise the c3 square.
A possible continuation could be: l...Kg8 2.Kc2 Kf7 3.Kd3 Кеб (also
sufficient is 3...Ke7) 4.Ke4 Kd7! (less clear is 4...Kd6 5.Kd4 — Fine makes
this mistake in “Basic Chess Endings", David McKay revised edition, page 47, —
because 5...Kc7 or 5...Kc6 are not allowed due to 6.h5! Kd7 7.g5 Кеб [In
case of 7...Ke7 white plays 8.Ke3 or 8.Kd3 as in this formation the key
squares are e5 and f5 and because the black king has to stay inside the
square of h5 the only correspondence is еб-е4.] and now 8.Ke4.
This means that Black is forced indeed to play 5...Kd7 as in the main
variation).
5 .Kd3 Kc7 - Black has moved as quickly as possible to c7.
6 .Ke4 Two other possibilities:
6.h5 Kd6! (6...Kd7? 7.g5 draw) 7.Ke4 Ke7! (7...Кеб? 8.g5 draw) 8.g5
Кеб! and wins.
6.g5 Kd6 (6...Kd7? 7.h5 draw) 7.Ke4 Ke7 8.КеЗ Кеб 9.Ke4 g6 and
wins.
6...Kc6 (moving forward on the opposite side of the axis).
7.Kd4 Kd6 8.Ke4 Kc5 Again: moving forward on the opposite side of
the axis.
9.Kd3 Either 9.h5 or 9.g5 lose due to the same 9...Kd6.
9... Kd5 Ю.КеЗ Ke5! The exclamation mark has been added solely for
didactical purpose: according to the system 10...Kc4 (on a key square)
would win as well (by the way, only this move is given in the
“Encyclopaedia of chess endings" as being the path to victory), but at this
moment Black squeezes a faster win out of the occupation of the
corresponding square e5-e3.
As the present method for achieving the win is not obvious at all, we
are inclined to conclude that in effect White should have asked Black to
prove his superiority by playing on: for all practical purposes White
resigned too early!
A beautiful example of the vertical three rank system can be found in
a composition by Reti & Mandler (first formation). See Diagram 54:
Diagram 54
White to move and draw
Reti & Mandler
1929
Reti, in his posthumously published “Schachendspiele", dedicates five
pages to this ending.
Although all his variations are correct, in its totality it does resemble
a shoddy piece of work (sorry if this sounds a bit arrogant!) after we have
applied our theory.
First formation:
Diagram 55
Key squares: f5, e5 and d5, so this creates a 6-squares system, with the
disadvantage for White that he cannot use the 5th rank. It is therefore
easy to see that if it were Black’s move (Diagram 54) he wins with l...g6
because white is unable to move in one jump from h3 to f2 or f4 in order
to correspond against f8. In Diagram 54 also l...Ke7 is sufficient as the
move 2...g6 will immediately follow with the same result.
Second formation:
Diagram 56
Key squares: f5 and e5 because of the tempo-move ...g6. Corresponding
squares: none, because for both squares f6 or e6 White has the squares
f4 and e4. So this formation is unfavourable for Black.
Third formation:
Key squares: g5, f5 and e5 (a limited б-squares system, because g6 is not
available).
Corresponding Squares:
f6-f4
e6 - e4
Appended squares: for either f7 and e7 White has f3, e3, f5 and e5.
Main formation: (see Diagram 54)
There is only one key square: f5.
Corresponding Squares:
(a - a): f6 - e4, h5
(b - b): g6 - f4
(b - b): e6 - f4
Once more, due to a “tactical deformation” of the system white has a
double correspondence against the square f6, as we are about to explain:
With the white king on h5 Black cannot play Kf5 because of stalemate
and after l...Ke5 White plays 2.Kg6 Kf4 3.Kxg7 h5 4.Kf6!.
Appended squares: against f7 White has the “normal” e3 but also g4,
but not f3, f5 or e5 due to l...g6!.
So a new correspondence has been created:
(c - c ): f7 - e3, g4
Against the appended square e7 White has f3 and f5 (the latter
because g4 is located on the side, and also because White can continue
immediately with the move h4-h5).
With this new correspondence
(d - d): e7 - f3, f5
we get automatically:
e8-f4
and f8 - e4, g3
All this has been annotated in Diagram 58:
Diagram 58
Therefore White draws with l.Kg3 with the intention to reply on l...Ke7 with
2.Kf3 while on 1...KF7 2.Kg4! follows. Black is unable to make any progress.
The main variation is: l.Kg3! Kf7 2.Kg4! Kf6 3.Kh5! Ke5 4.Kg6 Kf4
5.Kxg7 h5 6.Kf6! draw.
For this chapter we have also dug up a concluding example from tour-
nament practice: (see Diagram 59)
Diagram 59
White to move
Chiburdanidze - Watson
Brussels, 1987
This is the same endgame formation as the one in Mandler & Reti,
except that the colours are reversed and all pieces have been moved up
by one rank.
The reader who has been acquainted with the theory sees immediate-
ly that after l.g4 the first formation has been created (Diagram 55). It is
very easy to see that Black is at the wrong side of the axis.
Dvoretsky points out in Chess Informant 45 that l.Ke3 also wins, as
after either l...Ke5 l...Ke7 or l...Kd5 the move 2.g4 wins, while after
l...Kd7 2.Ke4 wins because Black does not arrive on time on f6: 2...Кеб
3.g4 etc. The move 1...Кеб also loses, because of 2.Kf4.
The game continued with: l.Kf3?? Ke7! But certainly not l...Ke5? 2.g4
and Black cannot dispose of the f7 square.
2.Kf4 Кеб 3.g4 Kf6 4.Kf3 and Black blundered with 4...Ke7??. Watson
explained his blunder in “New In Chess” as being due to extreme time
pressure (it was his last move before the second time control): he was
expecting 4.Ke3, and didn’t see in time that the Women World
Champion had put her king “next" to it.
The remainder of the game needs no further comments: 5.Ke3! Kf7
6.Kd4 Kf6 7.KdS White has already arrived on a key square.
7... Ke7 8.Ke5 Kf7 9.KfS Kg7 Ю.Кеб Kg6 ll.h5 Or for players with an
“Uncle Scrooge” obsession: ll.Ke7 Kg7 12.h5
ll... Kg5 12.Kf7 Kxg4 13.Kg6 Kf4 14.Kxh6 and Black resigned.
Chapter 11: Quite a Grind
Another example on how the theory of the key squares can help us in
checking the analysis from grandmasters: it is also an illustration on how
easily the masters themselves can get off the right track in such “simple"
pawn endings.
Diagram 60 depicts the end of a game Azmaiparashvili against Eolian,
analysed by Gufeld in Chess Informant 28, endgame number 1. The moves
in bold are the ones which were actually played in the game.
Diagram 60
White plays and wins
Azmaiparashvili - Eolian
USSR 1979
Gufeld’s analysis is as follows:
l .Kxf5! Kf7 2.f4!(*l) and now:
2...Ke7 3.Ke5 Kf7 4.Kd6! Kf6 5.h6!
5...Kg6 6.Кеб and wins
5...Kf5 6.Ke7 Kxf4 7.Kf6
and wins
2...h6 3.Ke5 Ke7 4.f5 Kf7 5.f6 Kf8 6.Ke41 Ke8 7.КГ4 Kf8
8.Ke5 and wins.
l.Kg5? Kf8(*2) 2.Kxf5(*3)
2...Ke7! 3.Kg5 Kf7 4.Kh6 Kg8 5.f4 Kh8 draw
2...Kf7?? 3.Kg4? -3.f4! and wins (*4)
3...Kf6 “already draws” (*5)
4.Kf4(*6) Kf7(*7) 5.Kf5(*8)Ke7
6.Ke5 Kf7 7.Kd6 Kf6 8.Kd7 Kf7
9.h6
9...Kf6? 10.Ke8 Kg6 11T4 Kxh6
12.КГ7 and wins
9...Kg6! 10.f4 Kf7!l 11.f5 Kf6
draw.
And here are our critical notes on his analysis:
(*1): The exclamation mark is out of place, as 2.Ke5 is sufficient as
well.
(*2): or 1...КГ7, which is also sufficient to draw.
(*3): but not 2.Kf6 f4! (the only move) draw, because 2...Kg8 loses
after 3.Kxf5 Kf7 4.f4 or 4.Ke5.
(*4): or 3.Ke5, winning.
(*5): 3...Kf6? Gufeld thinks that after this move the game is already
drawn at this point. Further on we’ll point out this is not the
case. Either 3...Kf8 or 3...Ke8 are correct for drawing, in order to
answer 4.Kf5 with 4...Ke7 and 4.Kg5 with 4...К17.
(*6): with 4.f4! white still wins, so 4.Kf4? should get a question mark.
Therefore:
(*7): 4...KF7? After 4...Кеб white can only win by repeating the
position with 5.Kg4! Kf6 — only move — 6.f4 and now:
a) 6...KF7 7.Kf5 etc.
b) 6...Ke7 (or б...Кеб) 7.Kg5 (threatens 8.Kh6) 7...K17
8.Kf5 etc.
(*8): 5.Kf5?? (5.Ke5! wins). After 5.Kf5?? the game is really drawn.
We have no further criticism on the remainder of his analysis. Finally, we
would like to point out that the original analysis from “Chess Informant”
has been considerably improved in the “Encyclopaedia of Chess Endings",
except that after 4.Kg4? Kf6 the winning move 5.f4 has been omitted.
Chapter 12: Two More Beers, Waiter!
“Yes, my friend Willem is paying... again”, Herman added to his message.
What was going on? We had taken a break and gone for an exploratory
tour of the old town of Mechelen, were we got stuck in one of those chess
cafes. The recently acquired knowledge was put to a severe test in the
following ending (Diagram 61):
Diagram 61
“You may choose”, started Herman. “White or black. With White you
have to win, and with Black you must draw. And you may choose as well
if you want to start, or if you want me to move first”.
Chessmasters have to protect their trade, don’t they? So here comes
the big trick: “And we will order two of those famous Belgian beers on
your account if you fail, and then we start over again. We stop at ten,
because this trappist beer is quite heavy stuff.”
I didn’t need any further encouragement! I started with White, and
made my initial move. Fully concentrated I tried to break through Black's
defence. I didn’t manage.
O.K., not too bad, let’s try it with Black now... But my king arrived just
one move late for stopping an imminent disaster.
This “Tom & Jerry” cartoon went on for a couple of hours: the waiter
gradually developed a sorry feeling in his eyes for this guy who seemed to
be a born loser. Every time I had to order more beers.
For my last opportunity I took plenty of time. Once again I tried to
find those corresponding squares starting from the key squares and their
access squares. Something started to dawn on me, but somehow I
couldn’t bring it all together into one coherent global picture. And of
course I was not allowed to shower the chessboard with beer mat scraps
with “A”, “B” and “C” written on them! So my last attempt foundered as
well, in a fog of inebriety and disappointment...
The next day (in reality just a few hours later) Herman told me that
this little game drove a few friends of his “completely nuts” for a whole
month: every time they thought they had arrived at the solution he
proved the opposite. He omitted to explain if that meant another whole
month of free beers!
So once more we sat at the chessboard, this time with a large mug of
hot coffee. In retrospect it is even reasonably easy:
White must try to win.
The key squares are not difficult to find: b5, g5 and h5. If White
arrives at the access square c4, then Black has two choices: аб or b6.
But the square аб is too far away from the other battle scenes: White
runs fast to the kingside and wins. So Black can in reality only block on
b6 if the white king is at c4. The first correspondence has been found:
(a - a): c4 - b6
If for any reason the two kings become separated by more than one file
then the game is won, because the white king can then march unhindered
to the other key squares.
The other key squares have h4 as the access square. In this case Black
can be either on g6 or on h6. Therefore there are no corresponding
squares on the kingside.
Quickly we find: White on d3, Black on c7 (b7 is too far away):
(b - b): d3 - c7
In the same way we find the corresponding squares
(c - c): c3 - b7 (“a" v “b”)
(d - d): d2 - c8 ("c” v "b”)
(e - e): c2 - b8 (“c” v “d”)
This has been annotated in Diagram 62:
Diagram 62
We need only to determine the value of the adjacent squares in order to
arrive at the final verdict; The correspondence Ь3-а7 has value “b” (as it
is located between “a”,”c” and “e”); the correspondence b2-a8 has value
d (between b , c and e ).
Now it becomes possible to arrive at the values for the squares on the
first rank: square cl has value “c”; bl and dl both have value “b”
(between “d”, “c” and “e").
The squares al, a2, a3 and el, e2 and e3 have no value for White, in
the same way as the squares d8 and d7 having no value for black: these
are merely appended squares.
The last Diagram (63) contains all “calculations”:
Diagram 63
The first conclusion we arrive at, is that Black is always lost with his king
on a6. Wherever White stands, he can always go to “d” or “e”, which
Black does not have at his disposal.
It becomes quite easy to see now that if it is White’s move, he has a
forced win by means of 1.КЫ1 because at this point he has already
moved on a corresponding square and now it is Black’s turn to move. (Of
course Herman veiled this knowledge for practical reasons during our
game in the pub: he made purposely bad moves early on, and corrected
this later by moving to the right square at the appropriate moment...)
With Black to move things have become clear now as well: he can
move his king either to b7 as to b8, because these are appended squares
to “b” and “d”.
Black therefore just waits to see where White is moving to:
For example: l...Kb8 2.Ka2 Kb7! 3.Kb2 Kc8 (or 3...Ka8) 4.Kc2 Kb8!
5.Kd3 Kc7 etc. White cannot break in.
Another try: 1.КЫ! Kb7 2.Kcl! Kc7 3.Kdl! Kd8 (or 3...Kd7) 4.Kc2!
Kc8 5.Kd2! Kd8 б.КсЗ! Kc7 Otherwise White runs to b5.
7.Kd3! and Black has no longer a decent choice.
A last tentative: 1.КЫ! Ka8 2.Kb2! Ka7 З.КЬЗ! Каб 4.Kc2! Kb6 5.Kd2
Кс7 6.Kd3 and Black resigns.
The position depicted in Diagram 61 was published by Reichhelm in
the “Chicago Tribune" in 1901, presumably an analysis referring to a game
supposedly played between Reichhelm and Emanuel Lasker.
In the same year a nearly identical position appeared in the
“Manchester Evening News", by Lasker, the sole difference being the
position of the kings: white’s on a3 and black’s on a8.
Chapter 13: A “Near Passing” Grade
For The Student
It took a long time - much too long - before I could flaunt my newly
acquired skill in pawn endings. Be honest, every chessplayer who has
unveiled another secret from goddess Caissa’s treasure chest, wants to
see it “in real life”, regardless if this is about a novelty in the opening, or
a method in endings! Just this feeling of “belonging to the happy few”
with access to that extra bit of knowledge... I really grew impatient: when
will I finally play a pawn ending? And I had to wait for quite a while, as
normally my games end with half a box of wood still on the board!
After a few years (!) the moment arrived for which I had been longing
for so much time. In Mechelen, in my own club, and by irony of fate
against our president. Teammates, all very well acquainted with my risky
tactical style, discreetly inquired if “I was composing something"... See
Diagram 64:
Diagram 64
White to move
W. Hajenius - W. Huyck
Mechelen 1992
In fact the position has arisen from sheer necessity, because the black
king came from dl to take my bishop on el, which in his turn had just
captured a black knight.
So there was no decent alternative, because leaving the knight on the
board would mean losing the c2-pawn, with an easy win for Black.
Therefore taking refuge in a pawn ending was the least worse of my
choices.
But I did see that the (by now famous) three rank system comes into
play, as I could detect three key squares next to each other: cl, c2 and c3.
And suddenly I felt very much at ease.
At once I played l.Kal. At first sight the squares al and a2 seem only
appended squares for Ы and b2, and similarly el and e2 for Black.
Unfortunately it is not as easy as that. Because the pawns at c2 and c4
are taking away the natural corresponding squares d3-b3.
For “a" and “b” we have two appended squares for Black, but White in
turn does not have two appended squares on al and a2: we had already
seen from the example in Diagram 41 that the white king cannot stay on
the first rank due to a potential promotion with check.
In other words: l.Kal could be refuted immediately by: l...b4! 2.cxb4
(2.Kb2 ЬхсЗ+ З.КхсЗ Kdl etc.) 2...d4 3.b5 d3 and Black promotes with
check.
Black tried to penetrate with his king...: 1...Ке2 2.Ka2 КеЗ З.КаЗ See
Diagram 65
Black to move
W. Hajenius - W. Huyck
Mechelen 1992
... and discovered that after 3.,.Kd2 4.КЬ2 КеЗ 5.Ka3 Kd2 6.Kb2 Kdl
7.КЫ Kd2 he couldn’t make any progress. Completely disenchanted he
then decided to propose a draw...
So I had got my precious half point, completely undeserved of course.
Knowledge is power, and not only in the opening!
Because from this “correspondence” e3/a3 position an easy path to
victory does exist. From Diagram 65 Black wins again with the powerful
move З...Ь4+1
None of White’s replies can hold the game any longer:
I) 4.Kxb4 Kd2 5.Kc5 Kxc2 6.Kxd5 Kxc3 and wins;
II) 4.KB2 d4! The clearest; 4...bxc3+ 5.Kxc3 Ke4 6.Kd2 d4 7.Ke2 c3
wins as well. 5.cxd4 Kxd4 6.c3+ Kd3! 7.cxb4 Kd2 and Black wins
easily.
Ill) 4.cxb4 d4 5.b5 d3; 6.cxd3 cxd3 6...c3! is also sufficient. 7.b6 d2
8.b7 dlQ 9.b8Q, Qal+ and White loses his queen.
Conclusion: In retrospect bl - dl is a false correspondence, because
(from Diagram 64) after l.Kal Kdl 2.КЫ the move 2...b4 still wins:
3.cxb4 d4 4.b5 d3 5.c3 d2 6.b6 Ke2 etc.
Ultimately the squares dl and d2 are key squares, where Black has two
access squares on el and e2, while White only has square cl as a blocking
square. And two squares always win against one. But this you knew
already! Once more this example demonstrates how important a careful
analysis is for determining the correct values of the squares.
Chapter 15: The Goalkeeper
If we could turn all our defeats into draws by some magic formula, then
we would be at world-class level, wouldn’t we? So the true value of an
appropriate defence should not be underestimated, ever. It had struck us
that in the great majority of chess books there always seem plenty of
examples on how to win, but never as many on how to avoid imminent
defeat. And this was even the case for the book you have been reading...
up to now!
It is true that it is much harder to come by a good example for the
defending side: in our case it almost happened by accident when Herman
played the Capablanca Memorial in Cuba in 1994. The first Dutch
edition had just been released, and he showed it to some of the partici-
pants.
Triggered by the subject of “key squares” local FIDE Master Armando
Lopez Jimenez mentioned that he just had an interesting pawn ending in
his game against IM Mariano Fraschini from Argentina.
Although the game ended in a draw he wasn’t sure whether the game
was played correctly by either side.
Well, this example turned out to be a true gem, a real jewel in the
crown of pawn endings! It clearly illustrates one basic principle for
defensive strategy:
Two connected appended squares are all you need to draw.
As an “appetiser” we serve the honing of the rough diamond into the
brilliant gem we’ve just mentioned:
Diagram 66
White to move
Lopez Jimenez - Fraschini
Havana 1994
White played: l.Kf3 But not l.g4+? because of l...hxg4 2.Kf2 c5! 3.dxc5
d4 and wins.
The game continued with: l...g5 2.hxg5 (2.Ke3 will be analysed at the
end of this chapter).
2...Kxg5
З.еб Kf6 4.Kf4 Kxe6 Immediately 4,..c5 fails due to 5.dxc5! Кеб б.КеЗ
Ke5 7.Kd3 d4 8.c6 and wins.
But on 4...c5 White must not play 5.bxc5 Кхеб б.КеЗ Kd7 7.Kd2 Kc6 (or
7...b4) 8.Kc3 Kb7 9.Kb3 Ka7! (a5 and b5 are key squares; b4-a6 is a corre-
spondence, and that’s all) 1О.КЬ4 Каб И.сб Kb6 12.c7 Kxc7 13.Kxb5 Kd6
14.КЬ6 Кеб 15.Kc5 KI5 16.Kxd5 Kg4 and Black is just in time.
5.Kg5 c5 6.dxc5 <141 6...Ke5? 7.Kxh5! (Better than 7.c6 Kd6 8.Kxh5 d4
9.Kg4 Кхсб 10.Kf3 Kd5 ll.Ke2 Kc4 12.g4 Kxb41 13.g5 Kc3 and Black is
quite OK.) 7,..d4 8.Kg4! Ke4 9.c6 d3 10.c7 d2 ll.c8Q, dlQ+ 12.Kh4 and
this looks like a winning queen ending for White.
7.КГ4.
Diagram 67
Black to move
Lopez Jimenez - Fraschini
Havana 1994
Instead of a rough diamond the position has now been turned into a
brilliant argument for our cause: try to solve this position by conventional
means, such as “distant opposition", “making a triangle with the king”,
etc! You will not succeed, and such “exceptions" prompted us to write this
book in the first place.
As mentioned in the Introduction, by investigating why such popular
approaches tended to be completely ineffective, we arrived at a much
more profound understanding of pawn endings.
Herman: “It was quite a thrill to find the solution to this problem after just five
minutes of fully concentrated thought (without moving the pieces of course!) And
at this time the authors of the game were not yet sure on its final assessment: was
it won for white, or was it a draw? And when I showed this position to at least
four grandmasters participating in this tournament, none of them was able to spot
the correct method of defence...’’.
Where to find key squares? Without too much difficulty we see d4 and
e4: with the white king on any of these squares the game is won; it is not
important where the black king is located, nor whose move it is.
In order to avoid White getting his king on one of these key squares,
black’s king must be on d5.
This is valid for a white king on either d3 or f4. With a white Kd3 a
black king on e5 is insufficient, due to the move с5-сб.
So, the first correspondence is found:
(a - a): d3 - d5
(a - a): f4 - d5
By examining the other way to access the e4 key square we find the cor-
respondence:
(b - b): f3 - e5
Between the squares d3 (value “a”) and f3 (value "b”) and black’s d5
and e5 (also value “a” and “b” respectively) we have just one single square
for each side, so this becomes a correspondence as well:
(c - с): e2 - e6
Between black’s “a” and “c” we have square e5, already evaluated as having
value “b”. So, square d2 (between white’s “a” and “c”) also gets value “b”.
Finally, square c2 is between “a” and “b” and therefore also gets value
“c” (as we have already seen).
Can we find any further corresponding squares between “b” and “c”?
Let’s take for example the square £2, between “b” and “c”. Can we give f2
value “a” (also between “b” and “c”)? The answer is no: Black has besides
d5 two connected appended squares, f6 and f5. And White has a whole
lot of them between his “b” and “c”: cl, dl, el and £2 are all appended
squares for White.
It is important to note that the other appended square for Black
(between “b” and “c”) is d5. This square is quite useless for Black as this
square is there just on its own: whenever the black king moves there, the
white king will commute to another appended square and then takes the
correspondence on either “b” or "c”, depending on Black’s last move.
Our findings have been mapped out in Diagram 68:
Diagram 68
Black to move
Lopez Jimenez - Fraschini
Havana 1994
The method for a successful defence suddenly stands out: Black has two
connected appended squares, on f6 and f5 and can therefore hold his
position.
By just moving his king between f6 and f5 against a white wandering
king on cl, dl, el, f2 he waits until White decides to move forward, and
at that moment he steps on “b” or “c” as dictated by the position of the
white king. And this is the only method for drawing!
Can you visualise now an agile goalkeeper jumping up and down
between the goalposts f6 and f5, while catching all “free kicks” from any
direction: cl, dl, el and £2?
Do you understand Herman’s joy when he saw the beauty of this
dynamic equilibrium?
Furthermore only the theory of key squares is able to explain this: a
sequence like (from Diagram 68): l...Kd5 2.Kf3 Ke5 3.Kf2 Kf5! (or
3...Kf6!) 4.Kel Kf6! 5.Kdl Kf5! 6.Kcl Kf6! 7.Kc2 Кеб! would be quite
impossible to explain with inadequate concepts such as “distant
opposition”!
After this analysis it becomes obvious that several mistakes were still
made before the scoresheets were finally signed-off:
The game concluded with: 7...Kd5 (also “a”) 8.Kf3 (“b”) Ke5 (“b”)
9,Ke2 (“с”) Кеб (“c”) 10.Kf2 (appended square) Kd5?? Black should
have played either Kf6 or Kf5.
ll .Ke2?? By moving to the other appended square with 11.Kei! White
would have won: ll...Ke5 12.Kd2! Кеб 13.Ke2! Ke5 14.Kf3 winning, or
11...Кеб (or ll...Kc6) 12.Ke2! etc.
ll ...Ke6 (back on track!) 12.Kd2 (“b”) Ke5 (“b”) and the draw was
agreed.
Even in the final position an expert in our endgames would almost
surely have won with a move like 13.Kcl or 13.Kdl.
Neither Lopez Jimenez, nor Fraschini found Black’s defence against
these moves.
White could have tried 2.Ke3 at his second move (2.Kf2, gxh4!) - but
not 2...g4? З.КеЗ Кеб 4.Kf4 Ke7 5.Kf5 winning - 3.gxh4 Kg6 4.Kf3 Kg7
5.Kf4 Kg6 followed by б.еб, Kf6 is nothing.)
Now we have three variations:
a) 2...gxh4? 3.gxh4 Kg6 4.Kf4 and White gets the f5 square.
b) 2...g4 3.Ke2 Kg6 4.Kf2 Kg7 5.Ke3 Kf7 6.Kf4 Kg6!
6...Кеб? 7.Kg5 c5 8.dxc5 Kxe5 9.c6! Kd6 10.Kxh5 is easy for White.
7.e6 This is the only try for a win.
7... Kf6 8,e7 Kxe7 9.Kg5 Кеб! 10.Kxh5? 10.Kf4 is still a draw.
10...Kf5! ll.Kh6 c5 and now:
bl) 12.bxc5 b4 13.сб Кеб 14.c7 Kd7 15.Kg7 b3 16.h5 b2 17.h6
blQ 18.h7 Qd3 with a big plus for Black.
b2) 12.dxc5 d4 13.c6 Кеб 14.c7 Kd7 15.Kg7 d3 16.h5 d2 17.h6
blQ 18.h7 Kxc7 and Black wins by one tempo.
c) 2...Kg6 З.еб
3.Kf3 Kf5 is a repetition.
3... gxh4! 4.gxh4 Kf6 5.Kf4 Кхеб 6.Kxg5! c5! 7.dxc5 d4! 8.Kf4.
Diagram 69
Black to move
Again, an interesting position. We have the same key squares,
corresponding squares and appended squares as we had in Diagram 68.
But here White has an additional appended square on g3, between f4
“a” and f3 “b”. But this conjugation doesn’t turn into a correspondence
because the black king can either occupy e6, between “a” and “b”, or £5,
blocking “a” for the white king and still keeping “b” under control. So the
drawing method is the same as for Diagram 68.
With this chapter dedicated to the “art of defence” we conclude our
elucidation of the theory on key squares. The remainder of the book is
focussed on pragmatic matters: how and when to apply the theory in
practical play, and especially in your own games!
Chapter 15: Practical Tips
The time has nearly come to say farewell to you. We sincerely hope that
you have enjoyed studying the theory from this book, and that you now
feel ready to use it to your advantage in a practical game.
Still, we want to bridge the gap between theory and practice by giving
you a few suggestions for when the “great moment” is there. These prac-
tical hints combined could be regarded as a “working summary" for a
tournament player.
1) In case a pawn ending seems to be a dead draw because it looks
nearly impossible to penetrate with the attacking king, then try to
forget for a moment both kings, and start “dreaming”:
“where should the attacking king he, in order to win, whoever's move it is?”
2) Find the access squares and the blocking squares. See if this
produces any corresponding squares: this means a disadvantage for
the player whose move it is!
3) If corresponding squares are not produced “automatically”, then try
to find them through analysis.
This needs real concentration, so use plenty of time for this (if you have
it, of course!).
Try not to be disturbed by any impatient onlookers, or by team-mates
screaming for action, while they see you in deep thought on “such an easy
pawn ending...” You know by now that there is more than meets the eye!
4) If you don’t manage to find new corresponding squares, do not
despair but start looking for appended squares.
The attacking side wins with:
- one appended square against none;
- two connected appended squares against one, or
against two isolated ones.
For the defending side:
- all you need is two connected appended squares!
5) The search for key squares becomes easier by spotting basic char-
acteristics, such as the passed pawn, or the blocked pawn.
6) Being able to find three key squares next to each other has major
consequences: the three-rank system, either horizontally or
vertically.
7) Special care should be exercised when considering a pawn move:
- moving a pawn one square forward also means, in many cases, that
you are pushing the key squares forward as well;
- having one extra tempo at your disposal means in general that you
have a “master card” up your sleeve;
- having the double choice of moving your pawn one or two squares
forward nearly always means a decisive advantage.
Chapter 16: Centuries of Pawn Mastery
The pawn has always fascinated mankind a great deal, due to the magic
powers locked up in such a tiny and humble appearance. The saying that
“the pawn is the soul of chess” has been attributed to the great Frangois
Andre Philidor [1726 - 1795]. He probably wanted to emphasise that
pawn moves are of an irreversible nature: a weakness created by a single
pawn move can be decisive, without the possibility of undoing the
damage at a later stage. Therefore decisions on any pawn move weigh
very heavily!
Studying pawn endings as we know it today could only have started
after the introduction of the “en passant” rule, around the fifteenth or
sixteenth century. Le Lionnais and Maget mention in their “Dictionnaire
des Echecs” that the famous Spanish player Ruy Lopez de Segura
[c.1530 — c.1580] gave his blessing to this rule around 1560.
Hooper and Whyld stick to the fifteenth century for dating the “en
passant” capture, and inform us that both Ruy Lopez as well as Pedro
Damiao (born in Odemira, Portugal, but better known by his Italian
name Damiano, deceased in 1544) strictly forbid using the “en passant”
capture if this would provoke a discovered check. According to the afore-
mentioned two authors, the “en passant” resulted as a logical conse-
quence from another, still recent rule at that time: the double move of the
pawn from its starting square.
This double move was supposedly introduced in the thirteenth
century, and the “en passant” rule arrived to rescue the game from the
excessive blocking up of the resulting positions.
The “en passant” rule only got global acceptance in 1880(!), when the
Italians revised their own rules and got rid of the so called “passar
battaglia” that avoided the pawn’s capture in its double move forward.
The French abbe Philippe Ambroise Durand [1799 - 1880], who was a
teacher of Rhetorics in Falaise and later instructor of Philosophy in
Lisieux, wrote a book entitled "Strategic raisonnee des fins des parties” after
being pensioned. Edited in two volumes, it was the first book totally ded-
icated to the practical play of endgames.
In his work Durand investigates together with Jean Preti the nature of
"opposition”, as well as an elementary form of “correspondent squares”.
He also coined the term “trebuchet” (which is in reality a catapulting war
device used in Medieval days) as being a situation of “mutual zugzwang”,
as for example Diagram 10 in our book.
Duchamp and Halberstadt (see further on) mention in passing the
existance of an earlier article in “La Nouvelle Regence” (Paris, 1860 —
1861) about this, but without providing any further details.
In the second issue of the magazine “Casopis Ceskych Sachistu” of
1907, the Czech Jan Drtina [1834 - 1907] pointed to the weak squares in
the enemy camp, calling these “critical squares”. These were the basic
notions for a theory, which later his fellow countryman Frantisek Dedrle
[1878 — 1957) proclaimed as being the “Drtina Theory”, firstly in 1921
and later in his “Studie” of 1925.
Other writings on the same theme soon started appearing. In 1920 the
British author Creassey Edward Cecil Tattersall [1877 - 1957] published
the book “A Thousand Endgames”, where he gives several examples on the
subject.
In 1917 the Swiss Hans Fahrni [1874 - 1939] published in Leipzig
“Das Endspiel im Schach”, where he already mentions key squares,
opposition and triangulation. In 1922 Johan Nepomuk Berger [1845 -
1933] - yes, indeed! the same person whose name is forever linked to the
Sonneborn - Berger system - published a revised edition of his “Theorie
und Praxis der Endspiele" (the first edition was in 1890), which can be
considered as being the first work containing a scientific approach to the
endgame in general. He spent 11 pages just on the opposition alone. And
it is this part that is severely, one can even say bitterly, criticized by
Dedrle in “Studie”. One of the many quarrels that have taken place in our
little chess world...
Nikolai Dmitriyevich Grigoriev [1895 — 1938], the “sorcerer of pawns”
has been Champion of Moscow several times, certainly not a small
accomplishment. He was also the chess editor of “Izvestia” in 1922 and
1923. In 1922 he developed the theory of the key squares in a spectacular
way.
The Russian Master Ilyia Leontyevich Rabinovich [1891 — 1942] was
the first to publish an original in the Russian language on endgames. His
first edition of “Endspielj”, published in 1927 saw 4000 copies running off
the presses. The second edition appeared in 1938 and was also highly
successful with 7000 copies printed. It is one of the most important
contributions to pawn endings.
In 1932 one of the most famous artists of all times, Marcel Duchamp
[1887 - 1968] wrote, in partnership with Vitaly Halberstadt [1903 -
1967] the book “Lopposition et les cases conjuguees sont reconciliees”.
Halberstadt was born in Odessa, but spent most part of his adult life in
Paris. He became a French citizen and won the championship of Paris in
1925.
Duchamp dedicated most of his life to the arts, but as of the mid
twenties until 1933 he was spending a lot of time at the chessboard,
much to the chagrin of the art lovers... He competed in the World
Championship for Amateurs, which took place in Paris in 1924 and
which was the starting event for establishing the Federation
Internationale des Echecs (FIDE). Duchamp became champion of Paris
in 1925 and was a member of the French team at four chess Olympiads.
He also played four times in the finals of the French championship.
The title of their book already gives away the polemics between “oppo-
sition” and “key squares”. The two authors think it is more of a semantic
problem and use the term “orthodox opposition” when dealing with
direct opposition, while reserving “heterodox opposition” for more com-
plicated matters. A sure demonstration of the power of words!
The graphical presentation of this book is superb, and this is the main
reason why it is so popular amongst the art lovers of Duchamp, and this
is especially true for non-chess players!
The first 28 diagrams of their book are of great practical value. For
example, number 21, extracted from the book “La Superiorite aux Echecs
mise a la portee de tous et particulierement des Dames qui aiment cet amusement
...” of the Dutch Philippus Julius Zuylen van Nyevelt [1743 - 1826],
published in 1792, shows an identical pawn structure to that you will find
at the end of this chapter. Just the title in itself of Zuylen van Nyevelt’s
book is already worth a good laugh!
But then Duchamp and Halberstadt embark onto more complicated
paths, with highly artificial pawn structures bound not to occur in a real
game. Exactly the type of positions we have been very careful to avoid in
“The Final Countdown”, although these may still appeal to the serious
student of the key squares theory.
In 1941 came “Basic Chess Endings" by the American Rueben Fine
[1914 - 1993], but the pawn ending section has been written in a rather
superficial fashion. Fortunately 1944 saw the birth in Zaragoza of the first
volume of “Finales de Ajedrez" from Ramon Rey Ardid [1903 — 1988],
exclusively on pawn endings. This was indeed an interesting topical work.
But by far the major contribution to the theory came in 1956, when Ilia
Lvovich Maizelis [1894 - 1978] published in Russia his masterpiece on
pawn endings. This has been translated into Spanish as “Finales de
Peones" by the Martinez Roca publishers from Barcelona. It has been
incorporated since into the excellent collection on endgames by Yuri
Averbakh.
Maizelis wrote, though, for the experienced chessplayer, in a language
only the initiated were able to understand. Perhaps his fault was that he
created too much material. In “The Final Countdown” we have tried to
simplify this language, making it more didactical. For example, we have
tried to separate the notion of corresponding squares from appended
squares (where colour and precision is not always so important as in the
former), and we have introduced the concepts of access and of blocking
squares, of the horizontal and the vertical 3-rank sytems, in order to
explain the theory better as a whole. But we consider Maizelis’ work as
being the most important one for understanding pawn endings.
Recently (1993) were published, in The Netherlands two books on
pawn endings. “De compositie van het eindspel”, by Teun Balemans [1951 —
] and “Spiegelen, Springen, Schuiven, Draaien”, by J. Buijs and R. Hendriks,
just a few months before the arrival of “Veldjes tellen”, the Dutch
forerunner of “The Final Countdown”.
Both works deal mainly with fairly complicated compositions of
limited practical value for the real game. This has been also the reason
why we haven’t made use of important books such as “Contribute alia
leoria dei Finali di Soli Pedoni”, published in 1925 by Rinaldo Bianchetti
[1882 — 1963] and “Opposition und kritische Felder im Bauerendspiel”, edited
by W. Bahr, in 1936. This also applies to “Lehr- und Handbuch der
Endspiele” by Andre СЬёгоп [1895 - 1980], where the second part deals
with pawn endings, (published in 1957) although his approach has been
quite comprehensive.
In 1990 the new pawn magician and successor of Grigoriev, M. Sinar
published in Kiev, in co-authorship with V. Archakov a book which title
translates to “Harmony in Pawn Endings”.
As we don’t want to stay exclusively within the monotony of just listing
books and authors, let’s have a close look at an ending which could (at
least in principle if we would allow time to flow backwards...) have added
some more fuel to the academic discussion between, let’s say, Dedrle and
Berger:
Diagram 70
Black to move
Touzane - Cao
Budapest 1995
The International Master Sang Cao, one of the many new emerging
talents in Vietnam, tried to defend himself by playing l...Re4 thus
hoping to escape to safety through a pawn ending. As the black king is
cut off from his pawn, this is certainly a good strategy in principle.
The also International Master Olivier Touzane, who had just celebrated
his 22nd birthday, is one of the French rising stars. He won the game with
2.Rxe4 Kxe4 3.Ke2 Kf5 4.Kd3! Ke5 (4...g4? 5.h4 Ke5 б.КеЗ wins) 5.Ke3
Kf5 6.Kd4 Кеб 7.Ke4 Kf6 8.Kd5 Kf5 9.g4+! Kf4 Ю.Кеб Kg3 ll.Kf6 and
Cao resigned, 1-0.
Things would have been completely different if Black had a deeper
understanding of pawn endings. The move that draws is l...g4! 2.h4
(2.hxg4 Rxg4 3.Kf2 Re4! leads to an easy draw) 2...Re4! Now yes! Either
after the immediate rook swap with 3.Rxe4 or after 3.Kf2 Rxe2+ we
arrive at the pawn structure that caused so much commotion between
Dedrle and Berger:
Diagram 71
Dedrle spends eight diagrams on this pawn skeleton (on the queenside
instead of the kingside). It is the same structure as in the ending of
Zuylen van Nyevelt (mirrored, and with black having the two pawns).
The solution is not difficult. The key squares are d4, d5, d6, d7, e4, e5,
e6, e7, f4, £5, f6, £7, g4, g5, g6, g7, h5, h6 and h7. This means a horizon-
tal system on the 4th, 5th, 6th and 7th ranks, in combination with a
vertical 3-rank system on the d, e and f files.
Black needs therefore to concentrate his defence on the squares d4, e4,
d5, e5, d6, e6, d7 and e7 (in the square of the h4 pawn), always contain-
ing both a white and a black square on each of the ranks.
The square £7 is not good (against a white king on b7), nor f6 (against
a white king on b6), nor f5 (white king on b5) because the white king will
come to b4 and Black does't have the f4 square available to him.
Black waits for the arrival of the white king at the critical area, by
playing his king on d6 and e6, or d4 and e4, without having yet to worry
about the colour of the squares, until the white king gets to the third
rank.
Black then puts himself on alert on the fifth rank, on d5 or e5, waiting
for the white king to arrive at the fourth rank, and only then takes the
final correspondence, of course on the same colour.
What makes this fine ending more delicate, is that here the choice of
colour to play on either (d5 or on e5) is of paramount importance. In an
ending like, for example Diagram 40, it didn’t matter if the waiting moves
were made on a black or on a white square prior to the enemy’s king
arrival at the critical zone.
But with the pawn formation under consideration there is a meeting
between the horizontal and vertical systems, and therefore the waiting
procedure must be executed with precision, on squares of the same
colour.
If the white king gets to the fourth rank from b3 for example, the black
king has to answer with ...Kd5, because if Black plays ...Ke5 then White
wins with Kc3!, Kd5; Kd3!. But with the black king on d5 there is no way
to make any progress.
This same careful choosing of the appropriate colour of the waiting
squares needs also to be made regarding the pawn formation presented
in Diagrams 48, 49 and 50.
With this knowledge in mind one solves in a glance any of the eight
diagrams given by Dedrle. How much confusion could have been avoided
by a simple read through “The Final Countdown”!
A final projection of a possible ending to the game Touzane - Cao:
l...g4! 2.h4 Re4! 3.Kf2 Rxe2+ 4.Kxe2 Kd6 (also good are 4...Кеб 4...Kd4
and even 4...Ke4) 5.Kd2 Кеб 6.Kc2 Kd6 7.КЬ2 Кеб 8.Ka3 Ke5! (this is
commonly known as the method of distant opposition) 9.Ka4 Ke4! and
there is no way to get any further.
Chapter 17: Exercises
Now it’s your turn to move. We have selected plenty of exercises to give
you an opportunity to prove your independence by solving practical
problems. The initial sequence of the exercises is roughly tuned to the
presentation order of the covered subject matter, but later you’ll be facing
any situation!
Diagram 72
White to move and draw
Jimenez - Ivkov
Havana 1962
Diagram 73
Black to move and win
Nenarokov - Grigoriev
Moscow 1924
Diagram 74
Black to move and win
Maroczy - Marshall
Monte Carlo 1903
3& КЯ
Diagram 75
Black to move and draw
' Gligoric - Fischer
Yugoslavia 1959
Diagram 76
White to move and draw
Berger - Mason
Bres/au 1889
Diagram 77
White to move and win
Moravec
Ceskolmxnsky Sack 1952
Diagram 78
White to move and draw
Nasi movie
1936
Diagram 79
White to move and win
Carvalho - Neuwald
Sao Paulo 1973
y-
f
Diagram 80
Black to move and win
Ivanov, P - Milev
Sofia 1958
Diagram 81
Black to move and win
Alburt - Kasparov
Daugavpils 1978
в
Diagram 82
Black to move.
Will he still be able to draw?
Bernstein - Maroczy
San Sebastian 1911
Diagram 83
Black to move and win
Kiihner - Sturm
Mannheim 1933
Diagram 84
White to move and draw
Morphy - Lowenthal
London 1858
Diagram 85
White to move. Is l.Nf5 a
good decision?
Vazquez, R - Nickoloff
Novi Sad 1990
Diagram 86
Black to move and draw
van Riemsdijk, H - Asfora, M
Curitiba 1977
Diagram 87
Black to move and draw.
Analysis in connection with a
game
Benko, P - Gereben
Hungary 1951
Diagram 88
Black to move and draw
Gaidanov - Filipov
Pernik 1972
Diagram 89
Black to move and win
Tringov - Stein
Amsterdam 1964
Diagram 90
White to move and win
Smejkal - Parma
Siegen 1970
Diagram 91
White to move and draw
Filep - Mariotti
Reggio Emilia 1969/70
Diagram 92
White to move and win
Neustadtl - Porges
1901
Diagram 93
White to move -
what is better:
a) with l.Bxd4+ to go
for a rook ending, or
b) l.Rxc4 Bxe3 2.fxe3
Rxg5+ 3.Rg4 and get
a pawn ending?
Georgiev, Kir. - Barlov
Vrsac 1987
Diagram 94
Black to move exchanged
rooks. Was this a good
decision?
Donev - Ziatdinov
Pristina 1989
Diagram 95
Black to move dared to
exchange rooks.
Was this a good decision?
Rocha, A - van Riemsdijk, H
Caxias do Sul 1975
Diagram 96
White to move pushed l.f4
and in the long run won a
slightly better queen ending.
There was an easier way...
Liebert - Onat
Skopje 1972
Diagram 97
Black to move. Is he able to
sacrifice the exchange with
l...Rxg3?
Dorfman - Anikaev
Volgodonsk 1981
Diagram 98
White to play and win
Horowitz - Denker
Philadelphia 1936
Diagram 99
How would you assess
l.Rb4?
Farago - van Riemsdijk, H
Nuoro 1993
Diagram 100
Would you dare to go for a
pawn ending with l.Rxg6?
Timman - Yusupov
Amsterdam 1994
Diagram 101
White to play. How would
you evaluate this position?
Wiersma - van Mil
Semi-Final, Dutch Championship,
Enschede 1994
Diagram 102
Black to move. Your student-
author was so excited to play
(finally!) a pawn ending, that
he decided to adjourn the
present position. What is
your opinion?
Hajenius - Wilms
Antwerp 1994
Diagram 103
White to play needs here a
draw in the last round for
first prize and his 3rd and
final grandmaster result.
What should he play?
Winants - Hansen, L-B
Wijk aan Zee 1994
Diagram 104
Same game: Black has played
still trying to win. How
would you secure the draw?
Winants - Hansen, L-B
Wijk aan Zee 1994
Diagram 105
White to move. Your verdict
please: White wins, draws or
loses?
Coull - Stanciu
Thessaloniki 1988
Diagram 106
Should White take on h3
(l.Kxh3 Qhl+ 2.Qh2
Qxh2+ 3.Kxh2) or leave the
queens on the board?
Gooris - Roofthoofd
Mechelen 1985
Diagram 107
Black to move. What is
better: l...Rc3 + or l...Re5?
Becerra - Nogueiras
Santa Clara 1994
Diagram 108
White to play. Find the first
two winning moves for White!
Fogarasi - Klarenbeek, H
Cappelle la Grande 1993
Diagram 109
Black to move. Is it safe to
play l...Rxe3?
Barlov - Schiissler
Haninge 1988
Diagram 110
Black to play.
Find Black’s winning idea.
Nunn - Smejkal
Lucerne 1982
Diagram 111
Black to play. Is l...Rh4
winning?
Tarjan - Larsen
Riga 1979
Diagram 112
Is l...Nxh3 enough for a win?
Lalic - Velimirovic
Vrsac 1989
Diagram 113
White to play and win.
Sergienko - Lavrov
Naeykanizsa 1993
жух
Diagram 114
Black to play. Are his two
extra tempi good enough for
a whole point?
Suzuki, H - Triebe de Mello, О
Sao Paulo 1995
Diagram 115
Has White an easy win here?
Analysis of a game
Panno - Quinteros
Buenos Aires 1993
Diagram 116
White to play. Can he accept
the rook exchange?
Balashov - Velimirovic
Rio de Janeiro 1979
Diagram 117
White to play and win.
Euwe - Samisch
Stuttgart 1937
Diagram 118
Can Black play l...Nxd6?
Ligterink - Douven
Wyfe aan Zee 1988
Diagram 119
Can White simplify into a
pawn ending?
Hort - Byrne, R
Bugojno 1978
Diagram 120
What’s good technique for
Black?
Reshevsky - Gurevich, D
New York 1982
Diagram 121
What would you play with
Black?
Shirov - Timman
Wijk aan Zee .1996
Diagram 122
Is l...Bxf3 winning?
Kamada - Reis
Brazilian Championship (Women)
Floriandpolis 1996
Diagram 123
White to play. Is he winning?
Markowski - Sadler
Bem 1996
Diagram 124
Is l.Rc7+ enough for a
draw?
Machado, H - Lim, M
Thessaloniki 1988
Diagram 127
White to play and draw.
Andres, M - Armas, J
Santiago de Cuba 1983
Chapter 18: Solution to the Exercises
Diagram 72:
The only move is l.Kcl! Kd3 2.Kdl c2+ 3.Kcl with a draw.
Diagram 73:
l...K d4! and Black takes the correspondence after 2.Kdl Kd3 or after 2,Kcl Kc3.
Diagram 74:
With l...Kg4! Black arrives by force on one of the key squares f3 g3 or h3. After
2.Kf2 the game is already over due to 2...Kh3. Therefore White must play 2.Kh2.
After 2...Kf3 3.Kh3 g4 + 4.Kh2 we have to be careful:
a) certainly not 4...g3 + ?? because of 5.Khl! drawing, but
b) 4...Kf2! 5.КЫ Kg3 b.Kgl and here as well we shouldn’t proceed in haste:
i) 6...КГЗ? because of 7.Kh2, but
ii) 6...Kh3! and White resigned: 7.КЫ g3 8.Kgl g2 wins.
Diagram 75:
The only move is l...Kb8! with a draw. In this way Black prevents White occu-
pying one of the key squares a6, b6 or сб with his king. Black will always be able
to block whenever the white King arrives at one of the corresponding squares.
2,Kc5 Kc7! or2.Kb5 Kb7!
Of course it would have been a mistake to place oneself immediately at the
correspondence with l...Kc7? or l...Kb7? because White would win respectively
with 2.Kc5! or 2.Kb5!
Diagram 76:
In this position the white king must rush in order to avoid his black counterpart
occupying b2. Let’s first show the continuation of the game as an illustration of
the wrong approach: l.Ke4?? Kb4 2.Kd3 Kb3 3.Kd2 Kb2 and White resigned:
Black has occupied the key square b2. For clinching to the draw White should have
played l.Ke31 Kb4 2.Kd2 Kb3 3.Kcl Ka2 4.Kc2. or З...а5 4.КЫ also drawing.
Diagram 77:
This position looks very similar to Diagram 7 and ends up there too:
1.КТ2 forcing Black to answer with l...h4 as he would lose his pawn after a move
with the king, whilst the white king has already arrived at a key square.
Now the time has come to use the well-known skilful plan of Tattersall and
Drtina: 2.Kgl!. We had mentioned already the continuation: 2...h3 3.g3! Kd7
4.Kh2 Кеб 5.Kxh3 Kf6 6.Kh4 Kg6 7.Kg4 and wins.
Diagram 78:
A composition of what could have been an actual position from a real game. On
l.Kg2 would follow l...Rxf2+ 2.Kxf2 Bb6 so therefore White plays l.Kg3. On
l...Bb6 White now has 2.Nd3 at his disposal with a draw. But Black plays
l...Rxf2 and seems to be winning a piece.
But after 2.Rh5+ Kg6 3.Rd5 Bb6 4.Rd6+ Kf5 5.Rxb6 it has become a pawn
ending. Black still has 5...Rxf3+.
The pretty part of this exercise is the fact that the off-hand retaking with
6.Kxf3?? even loses after 6...axb6 7.Ke3 Ke5! and White succumbs in the
struggle between the kings. But after 6.Kg2! axb6 7.Kxf3 it is Black to move,
with a draw. Also 6...Rg3 + is insufficient for winning as the same position will
arise after 7.Kxg3 axb6 8.Kf3.
Diagram 79:
With l.e5 White deprives the black king of the squares d6 and f6, meaning that
White penetrates through f5. The spare moves on the queenside just mean a tem-
porary delay in losing the battle: l...a5 2.a4 bxc4 3.bxc4 Kf7 4.Kf5 Ke7 5.e6 Ke8.
Corresponding squares have appeared on:
(a - a): e5 - e7 and
(b - b): f6 - f8.
Between these squares both parties have just one square, namely f5 and e8
respectively. This therefore becomes a new correspondence:
(c - c): fS - e8.
Let’s now examine the appended squares between "a” and "c”: White has e4 and
f4 (next to each other), while Black has d8 and f8 appended (isolated). So White
plays 6,Ke4! (or 6.Kf4!).
And of course not 6,Kf6 Kf8 7.e7? Ke8 with a draw, and also not 6.Ke5 Ke7!
(See also Diagrams 8 and 9, where this is explained for the first time.)
Black is now forced to move to one of the appended squares: 6...Kd8 and of
course White is now ready to place his king on the other appended square:
7.Kf4! after which Black resigned. For example 7...Ke8 8.Kf5! Kf8 9.Kf6 etc. or
8...Ke7 9.Ke5 etc.
Diagram 80:
The position depicted in the Diagram was agreed a draw, while this was in fact a
winning position for Black! After l...Kg6 2.Kd4 Kxg5 we can note down the
following: the squares еб, e5 and f4 are key squares. This provide us with the
following corresponding squares:
(a - a): g5 - e5
(b - b): f6 - d5
The appended squares g6 and d4 between “a” and “b” form a new correspondence:
(c - c): g6 - d4
Between “c” and “a” Black has two appended squares: h5 and h6 (connected),
while White has only d5. Now it becomes easy:
3.Ke5 (forced) Kg6 4.Kd4 (again the only move), KhS (or Kh6) 5.Kd5, Kh6
6.Kd4 Kg6 7.Kd5 Kf6 8.Kd4 Кеб (the key square) 9.Ke3 KeS 10.Kf3 f4 and now:
i) ll.Kg4 Ke4 12.Kxh4 f3 13.Kg3, КеЗ and wins, or:
ii) ll.Kf2 Ke4 12.Ke2 £3 + 13.KF1 (only move), Ke5 (or 13...KF5) - simi-
larly to the previous exercise 14.Kei Kf5 15.Kfl Ke4 etc.
Diagram 81: (The course of the game has been printed in bold)
l...Ke5 2.Kf3 f5 2.Ke3 g5
White still has the extra move h2-h3 at his disposal. There are two possibili-
ties: either he keeps this extra tempo and allows the black king to enter, or he
“squanders" his tempo in order to hold his position for the time being:
4.Kf3 g4+ 5.Ke3 f4+ 6.Ke2 Ke4 7.Kf2 Kd3 8.Kel Ke3 9.Kfl g3
lO.Kgl Ke2 li.Khl f3 12.gxf3 Kf2 and wins
10.h3 Kd2 ll.Kgl Ke2 12.К.Ы f3 and wins
10.hxg3 hxg3 11.Kei Kd3 12.Kfl Kd2 13.Kgl Ke2 14.Khl f3 15.gxf3 Kf2
and wins
4.h3 Kd5 5.Kd3 Kc5
A faster way would have been 5,..f4: the king has to give way now, and black
continues to play on the correspondence:
5...f4 6.Kd2 Kd4 7.Ke2 Ke4 8.Kf2 f3 9.gxf3 Kf4 and wins
б.КсЗ g4! 7.Kd3
The white king has to go back, as 7.hxg4 fxg4 8.Kd3 h3 loses immediately.
7...gxh3 8.gxh3 Kd5 9.Ke3 Ke5 10.Kf3 f4 ll.Kf2 Ke4 12.Ke2 f3+ 13.КН Kf5!
(the exclamation mark has been put by Kasparov; of course 13...Ke5 also wins.)
Here we find the corresponding squares:
(a - a): e3 - el
(b - b): f4 - f2
(c - c): e4 - fl
The following appended squares have been created between “b" and “c”: White:
gl and el (isolated) — Black: e5 and f5 (connected)
The game concluded with:
14.Kgl Ke5 and White resigned.
The last twitching could have been: 15.Kfl Ke4! 16.Kf2 Kf4 I7.Kfl Kg3 and
wins. (In the same way as in Diagrams 8 and 75.)
Diagram 82:
No, Black does not have a draw here, as the white king has already arrived at a
key square. Therefore Maroczy decided to resign immediately. On l...Ke6 there
would follow 2.Kb7 Kd5 З.КЬб winning, and on l...Ke5 2,Kb7 is also the right
answer.
Diagram 83:
1,..K£3
And certainly not l...Kxd4? 2.g4 Ke4 3.g5 Kf5 4.Ke3 Kxg5 5.Ke4 when White
wins!
2.Kd3 Kxg3 З.КеЗ Kg4 occupying the key square and pocketing the win.
Diagram 84:
At this moment you are witnessing one of the largest blunders ever committed
by Morphy:
l.Kgl??
His opponent Lowenthal, in his book “Morphy’s games of chess”, published
in London in I860, calls it laconically “an adventure that loses the game...”. This
game was the eighth in their match and because Morphy was already leading
comfortably by a large margin (5.5 -1.5) this absurd loss really didn’t matter that
much: Morphy won in the end with 10-4 (+9 -3 =2).
The game went as follows: l...Kg5 2.Kg2 (2.Kf2 Kf4 3.Ke2 c4 and wins) Kf4
3.Kf2 c4! 4.dxc4 (4,Ke2 c3 5.Kdl Ke3 6.Kc2 Kd4 and wins) Kxe4 5.Ke2 Kd4
6.Kf3 Kxc4 7.Ke4 Kb4 8.Kxe5 Kxa4 9.Kd4 Kb3 and White resigned.
A correct move would have been l.Ke3 or l.Kf3. For example: 1,КеЗ Кеб (not
l...Kg5? 2.Kd2 Kf4 З.КсЗ КеЗ 4.Kc4 and White wins) 2.Kd2 Kd6 З.КсЗ Kc7.
Diagram 85:
l.Nf5 is indeed a good decision. Black is now forced to exchange pieces, after
which the pawn ending is won for white due to his better king position. As a
“reserve” he also has the extra tempo move a2-a3, which was really needed in the
game for obtaining the victory.
l...Bxf5 + 2.Kxf5 Kd7 3.f4?!
In principle bad, because it turns to be more problematic: White only
manages to win due to his extra move a2-a3.
Much simpler would have been 3.g5 hxg5 (3...Ke7 4.gxh6 gxh6 5.f4 without
needing a2-a3) 4.Kxg5 Ke7 5.f4 Kf8 6.f5 Kg8 (6...f6+ 7.Kg6 Kg8 8.h6 Kh8
9.hxg7 and there is no stalemate, what could have been a possible last trick) 7.f6
Kh7 8.fxg7 Kxg7 9.h6+ Kh7 10.Kf6 and wins.
3...Kd8 4.g5 Ke7 5.gxh6 gxh6 6.a3 (the winning tempo) f6
A strange decision, but 6...Ke8 7.Kf6 Kf8 8.f5 would also have won. In reality
the next move is a trap.
7.Kg6 f5 8.Kg7 and Black resigned.
8.Kxh6 Kf6 9.Kh7 Kf7 10.h6 wins as well. The only thing White shouldn’t
play is 8.Kxf5?? Kf7 with a draw. The key squares are еб, f6 and g6. The only cor-
respondence is 15 - 17, for which Black has plenty of appended squares. For
example: 9.Kg4 Kf6 10.f5 Kf7 1 l.f6 Kxf6 12.Kf4 Ke71 (or 12,..Kg7!) 13.Kf5 Kf7
and draws.
Diagram 86:
The correct move is l...h41 2.Kg2 Kxf6 3.Kf3 Kg5 4,h3 f4! and Black has the
squares f5 and g5 at his disposal, guaranteeing the draw.
But the game went with l...Kxf6?? and after 2.h4! Black is suddenly lost.
Although he sealed the move 2...b4 in the envelope he later resigned without
further play. The automatic retaking on f6 was caused by severe time-trouble.
A possible continuation could have been: 3.cxb4 f4 4,Kg2 Kg6 5.Kf3 Kf5 6.b5
cxb5 7.b4 Kg6 8.Kxf4 Kf6 9.f3 etc.
Diagram 87:
The horizontal three rank system. Black has two times three squares at his
disposal so he can hold his position.
l...Kh7! - any other move loses:
l...Kg6? 2.Ke8 (moving forward by the other side!) Kg7 3.Ke7 Kg6 4.КГ8
and wins.
1...KF7? 2.Kd6 Kg6 З.Кеб Kg7 4.Ke7 and wins.
l...Kh6? 2.Ke8 and wins.
There is no way White can penetrate if the defence is carried out properly:
2.Kd8 Kh8!
2.Ke8 Kg8!
2.Ke7 Kg7! - always on the same colour and row.
2.Kd6 Kh6! 3.Kd5 Kh7! - just keep waiting calmly within the 2x3 area.
What is quite remarkable is that by removing the black g5 pawn in the initial
position, the game is still drawn! This "more economic” position is in fact a com-
position from Neustadtl (Chess Magazine, 1890) with colours reversed.
See also the last paragraph in the explanation about Diagram 41.
Diagram 88:
l...Kd4 2.Kel Kc3 3.Kdl - up to now everything is “normal”. But now care must
be exercised, because after
З...КЬ2? 4.a4 Kc3 5.Kcl Kb4 6.Kd2 b5 7.axb5 Kxb5 8.c3 Kc5 9.Ke3 Kd5
10.Kf4 b5 ll.Kf5 White wins..
3...b5! 4.Kcl Ь4 5.КЫ Kd2 6.Kb2 Ь5 7.КЫ and here also Black must play very
exactly:
7...Kc3? 8.Kcl Kd4 9.Kd2 and wins;
7...Ke2? 8.Kcl Kei ( 8...КеЗ 9.Kdl) 9.c4 bxc3 10.a4 winning;
7...КеЗ! 8.Kcl Ke4 (but not 8...Ke2? 9.c4 and wins) 9.Kdl Kd5 drawn.
Both Cvetkov in his book "Pawn Endings” and the Encyclopaedia award
9...Kd5 an exclamation mark, which is in fact misplaced, as 9...Ke5 also secures
the draw.
The key squares are d3 and e3, because if White could manage to get there
with his king, Black wouldn't be able to avert the breakthrough with c2-c3.
If, for instance, we put the white king on d3 and the black king on d5, then
White wins with 1.сЗ bxc3 (l...Kc5 2.c4) 2.Kxc3 Kc5 3.Kd3! (but not З.аЗ b4 +!)
3...Kd5 4.a3.
On the other hand, if we place black's king on c5, then White wins with l.Ke4
Kc6 2.Kd4 and З.сЗ.
This means that d2 - d4 are corresponding squares (because with the black
king on e4 the move l.c3 wins), as well as e2 -e4.
The appended squares are: for White: dl and el
for Black: d5 and e5
So it turns out to be impossible to find new corresponding squares. If Black
had played 9...Ke5 a possible continuation could be the sequence:
10.Ke2 Kd5 and if ll.Kf3 then ll...Kd4 with active counterplay:
12.Ke2 Kc3 13.Kdl Kb2 14.Kd2 Kxa2 15,Kcl draw.
12.Kf4 Kc3 13.Ke4 Kxc2 14.Kd4 Kb2 15.Kc5 Kxa2 16.Kxb4 draw.
It is therefore not appropriate to refer to “distant opposition", as was the case
in Cvetkov’s book.
Diagram 89:
Black didn’t let his guard down and ignored the little pawn on h4. Very wise,
because after l...Kxh4? the game is drawn. After 2.КГ2 Kg5 3.g31 Kf5 4.Ke3 Ke5
5.Kd3 Kd5 б.КеЗ White also has to go back.
Black played the winning move l...Kh2! and White resigned immediately. If
2.Kf2 then 2...Khl! and the g-pawn gets butchered:
3.Kg3 Kgl
3.g3 Kh2
3.Kfl g3.
Diagram 90:
Just to show that even very simplified positions still harbour unexpected
resources:
l.g3 g5+ 2.fxg5? Kg6 3.g4 f4 stalemate!
But with 2.Kh5! gxf4 3.gxf4 White wins, as he has already arrived at a key
square. It is not possible to ameliorate this variation for Black with 1...KF7 due
to 2.Kg5 Kg7 3.h4 Kf7 4.h5 and White wins.
There is even a “safer” (or cleaner) winning method. Leave the pawns where
they are and start applying the three rank system! This is exactly what Smejkal
did:
l.Kg3 Кеб 2.Kf2 Kd6 З.КеЗ Kd5 4.Kd3 Kc5 5.g4 fxg4 6.hxg4 Kd5 7. КеЗ Кеб
8.Ke4 Kd6 9.Kd4 and Black resigned.
But never, never 9.f5? Ke7! with a draw!
Diagram 91:
Due to a stalemate device the “losing” side once again is able to save his skin:
1. Kg2 Ke4 2.Kg3 h5 3.h3! (3.h4? КеЗ and wins) КеЗ 4.Kh4! Kxf4 stalemate.
Or 2...h6 3.Kg4 or 2...Kf5 3,Kf3 also draws.
Diagram 92:
The key square is d4, because of the tempo h2-h4. Because of this we have the
following correspondences:
(a-a): e3 - d5
(b - b): e4 - c5
f3 and c6 are the only appended squares, so:
(c - c): f3 - c6
If we now examine the appended squares between “a” and "c”, we conclude
that White wins because of the two connected squares (e2 and f2) against only
one for Black (c5).
l.K£3 Kc6 2.Ke2 (or 2.Kf2) Kc5 3.Kf2 (e2) Kc6 4.K£3 Kd5 5.Ke3 Kc5 6,Ke4 h4
Only move, as on 6...Kb5 would follow 7.Kd4 h4 8,h3 winning.
7.Kf3.
The relation between the appended squares remains unchanged of course,
because the tempo h2-h3 still wins. It is evident that 7.h3? would have been a
major error, as then suddenly d4 is no longer a key square, but c4 instead has
become one: 7...Kc6 8.Kd4 Kb5 with a draw.
7... Kd5 (otherwise Kg4 will happen) 8.Ke3 Kc5.
8...Kc6? (or 8...h3 9.Kf3 like in the game continuation) 9.Kd4 Kb5 10.h3.
9.Ke4 Kb5 (9...h3 Ю.КеЗ) 10.Kd4 h3 (at this time forced) И.КеЗ Kc5 12.Kf2
Kd5 13.Kf3! Kc5 14.Kg3 Kd5 15.Kxh3 Ke4 16.Kg4 Kd3
Black decides on active counterplay. The move 16...Kd5 loses due to 17.Kf3
and the spare moves of the h-pawn are decisive.
An other possibility would have been 16...Ke3 17.Kg3 Ke4 18.h4 Ke3 19.h5
gxh5 2O.f5 exf5 (2O...h4+ 21.Kxh4) 21.g6 f4+ 22.Kh2 fxg6 23.e6 f3 24.e7 f2 25.
Kg2 and wins.
17.КГЗ (17,h4 КеЗ!) Kc2 18.h4 Kxb2 19.h5 gxh5 2O.f5 exf5
2O...Kxa3 21.g6 fxg6 22.fxe6 Kb2 23.e7 a3 24.e8Q a2 25.Qa4 and then е5-еб
2O...Kxc3 21.g6 is equivalent.
21.g6 fxg6 22.еб Kxa3 23.e7 Kb2 24.e8Q a3 25.Qb5+ Kxc3 (not an ordinary
picture, one queen against five pawns) 26. Qbl etc. and White wins.
Diagram 93:
It was very tempting to go for the pawn ending in order to get rid of the dan-
gerous passed pawn on c4, but at the same time very wrong indeed!
Grandmaster Kiril Georgiev knew better than that and continued with:
l.Bxd4+! Rxd4 2.Kg3 Rd3 + 3.Kg4 Rd2 4.f4 Rg2+ 5.Kh5 Rg3 6.h4 and Black
resigned.
Even having an extra pawn is insufficient for winning the pawn ending: l.Rxc4?,
Bxe3 2.fxe3 Rxg5+ 3.Rg4 Rxg4 + ! 4.hxg4 Kg6 5.Kg3 Kg5
Threatens 6...f5 but not immediately 5...f5?? 6.Kf4! fxg4 7.Kxg4 and wins.
6.e4 f6 7.Kf3 Kg6 8.KF4 Kg7!
The only move: 8...KF7 loses due 9.Kf5 Kg7 10.g5 or 9...Ke7 10.e5.
9.Kf5 Kf7 and White cannot make any further progress.
Diagram 94:
Yes indeed, a correct decision. There is nothing for Black to worry about in the
pawn ending, as the game continuation will demonstrate:
l...Rxg4 2.fxg4 Kf6 3.Kf3 Кеб 4.Kg3 Ke7 5.Kh4 Kf6
The players still produced 6.Kg3 Ke7 after which they decided to shake hands
and call it a draw.
Very interesting is 6,g5+ hxg54- 7.Kg4 сб! The key square is g5. The corre-
spondence is g4 - f6. White has h3, g3 and f3 as appended squares, while Black
has еб and e7.
Two connected appended squares are sufficient for obtaining the draw. Any
action by Black on the queenside will only cause a delay without influencing the
end result.
Finally, it should be pointed out that l...Rf8 2.f4 exf4+ 3.Rxf4 Rxf4 is also
drawn.
Diagram 95:
No! With the reckless (and stupid! - H.C.v.R.) rook swap Black throws away a
sure draw.
After l...Rxe3?? the game continued with: 2.КхеЗ Ke7 З.Ке4 Кеб 4.g5 Kd6
5.f5 Ke7 6.f6+ Кеб 7.Kd4 Kf7 8.Ke5 Kf8 9.f7 Kxf7 10.Kd6 Kg7 Н.Кеб Kg8
12.Kf6 Kf8 13.Kxg6 Kg8 14.Kf6 Kh7 15.КП Kh8 16.Kg6 Kg8 17.Kh6 and Black
resigned.
It is worth mentioning that if all pieces would have been shifted one column
to the right in the starting position (so White: Kg2, Rf3, pawns on g4 and h4,
and Black: Kg6, pawn h6, Rb3), then the exchange of rooks would have been a
correct decision!
Diagram 96:
The game continued with l.f4 exf4 2.gxf4 e51 3.fxe5 g5 4,hxg5 h4 5.g6 Ke7 6.g7
Kf7 7.e6+ Kxg7 8.Kd6 h3 9.e7 h2 10.e8Q hlQ 1 LQe5 + and White did manage
in the long run to win the queen ending.
Botvinnik did analyse this ending in the “Encyclopaedia of chess endings" where
he awarded an exclamation mark for l.f4. He found a couple of improvements
for Black, starting with 3...Ke7 (instead of 3...g5) and concluded that the
endgame after 4.Kd5 g5 5.hxg5 h4 6.g6 h3 7.g7 KF7 8.e6 + Kxg7 9.Kd6 h2 10.e7
hlQ H.e8Q could possibly be held to a draw for Black.
And all this is energy spent in vain as White has an easy win after l.Kb6! Kd6
2.g4! Kd7 3.Kb7 Kd6 4.Kc8 Kc5 5.Kd7 Kd4 6.gxh5 gxh5 7.Кхеб КеЗ 8.Kxe5
Kxf3 9.Kf5. Even world champions and encyclopaedias do make mistakes once
in a while...
Diagram 97:
Afer l...Rxg3?? 2.Kxg3 we have a three-rank horizontal system, on which White
has a 2 x 3 area for defending himself properly. For example 2...Kd3 3.Kh3! with
a draw.
Black did it better than this by playing l...Rdl 2.Ke2 Kc2 З.КеЗ Rd3+ 4.Ke2
Rd2+ 5.Kel Kd3 6.Bf2 Rxf2! (this is the right time) 7.Kxf2 Kd2 and White
resigned.
Diagram 98:
This fairly well known endgame appears in several tutorials (Euwe, Averbakh,
Fine...) and in all of them lavish praise was bestowed on the game’s continuation:
l.Kh7 Kf7 2.Kh8 Kf8 3.g5 and Black resigned: 3... hxg5 4.hxg5 Kf7 5.Kh7 and
White wins.
The Soviet endgame composer M. Sinar finally pointed out that the first two
moves from both parties were completely wrong. After l.Kh7? the unexpected
move 1.. ,h5!! throws a spanner in the wheels as the position now becomes drawn.
A few variations:
2.gxh5 Kf7 3.h6 g6! 4.Kh8 Kf8 and the white king is locked up
2.g5 Kf7 3.Kh8 Kg6! 4.Kg8 stalemate.
After l.Kh7? Kf7? White must play 2.h5! in order to win:
2...Kf8 3.Kg6 and 4.g5.
2...Kf6 3.Kg8 g6 4.Kf8 gxh5 5.gxh5 Kg5 6.Ke7 Kxh5 7.Kxd6 and wins.
And again it is easy to see that after l.Kh7? Kf7? 2.Kh8? Black once more has
2...h5!! available for drawing, meaning that 2...Kf8? also deserves a question
mark.
But... can White still win in the diagrammed position? Yes, but only by the
narrowest margin possible: a winning queen ending!
I.g5! hxg5 2.Kxg5 Kf7 3.h5 Ke7 4.Kg6 Kf8 5.h6 Kg8! 6.Kh5! and now:
6...Kh7 7.hxg7 Kxg7 8.Kg5 Kf7 9.Kf5 and wins;
6...gxh6 7.Kxh6 K£7 8.Kh7! Kf6 9.Kg8! Kg5 10.KF7 Kf4 ll.Ke7 Kxe4 12.Kxd6
Kf4 13.Kxc5 e4 14.d6 e3 15.d7 e2 16.d8Q elQ 17.Qf6+ and wins.
As a final remark we want to mention that although the “Encyclopaedia of Chess
Endings” does mention this winning variation, it still sticks to the game’s con-
tinuation as being the main path to victory.
Diagram 99:
This was a very tricky question! Farago has a winning position, but by jumping
too hurriedly into the pawn ending he makes things extremely difficult for
himself. He should first have inserted l.Rh4 g6 and only then propose to
exchange rooks with 2.Rb4 Rxb4? (2...Rc6+ and 3...b6 is tougher) 3.Kxb4 d4
4.g3 dxe3 5.Kc3 h4 6.Kd3 hxg3 7.hxg3 e2 8.Kxe2 Kd4 9.f4 Ke4 1O.K£2 b5 11.b4
Kd4 12.g4 Ke4 13.Kg3 where Black has run out of good moves.
So, forcing Black to spoil his g6-g5 tempo makes all the difference between an
easy or a difficult game, as we are going to see now,
Farago played: l.Rb4?! This does not throw away the win altogether, but
greatly reduces the probability of it!
l... Rxb4!
The exclamation mark is primarily for spotting the best fighting chance, as
the rook ending would certainly lose in the long run.
2,Kxb4 <14! 3,g3!
Other possibilities for White were insufficient for victory:
a) 3.exd4+ Kxd4 and now:
4,КЬ5 КеЗ 5.Kb6 h4 6.Kxb7 Kf2 7,b4 Kxg2 8.b5 Kxh2 9.b6 Kg2 Ю.Ксб
h3 draw;
4 .h4 КеЗ 5,Kb5 Kf2 б.КЬб Kxg2 7.Kxb7 Kg3 8.b4 Kxh4 9.b5 Kg5 draw;
4 .g41? h41 (But of course not 4,..hxg4 5.fxg4 Ke4 6.Kb5 Kf4 7.Kb6! and
the white b-pawn promotes with check)
5 .КЬ5 КеЗ 6.f4 h3! also with a draw.
b) 3.e4 Kf4 4,e5 d3! 5.КсЗ КеЗ б.еб d2 7,e7 dlQ 8.e8Q+ Kf2 and due to his
active king Black has enough counterplay,
c) 3,Kc4 dxe3 4,Kd3 Kf4 5,Ke2 h4l is sufficient as well.
d) 3.f4+ Ke4 4,exd4 Kxd4 is neither an improvement for White.
The game continued with:
3...dxe3 4,Kc3 h4! 5,Kd3 hxg3 6.hxg3 e2! 7.Kxe2
7,f4+ Kf5 8.Kxe2 Ke4 is equivalent to what actually happened in the game.
7...Kd4
The active king makes the win for White quite problematic.
8. f4?
After this move the game is drawn, as the continuation will demonstrate.
White should have played 8.g4! b5! 9.g5! where Black will get eventually into
zugzwang. For example:
9...b4 10,Kd2 b3 ll.Ke2 Kd5 12,КеЗ Ke5 13.f4+ and wins
9...g6 10.Kd2 Ke5 11.КеЗ Kf5 12,f4 b4 13.ЬЗ Кеб 14.Ke4 and wins
9...b4 10.Kd2 b3 (or 10...g6 11.b3) 11.b3 and wins.
Black continued with:
8„.Ke4 9,Kf2 (or 9.b4 b5! etc.)
9...b5! 10. b4 (10.Ke2 b4!) 10...Kd4 U.g4 (ll.Kf3 Kc4 with a draw)
ll...Ke4! 12,Kg3 g6! (the extra tempo that saves the game: see the commentary
at the beginning)
13.g5 КеЗ! 14.Kg4 Ke4
It is impossible for White to get to one of the key squares such as f3, e3 or
e4.
15.fS gxf5+ 16.Kh3 Ke5! 17.Kg3 £4+ 18.Kg4?!
18.Kf3 Kf5 19.g6 is drawn as well.
18... Ke4 and at this moment a draw was agreed. Strictly speaking Black should
have continued playing on, as by now he even stands a little bit better.
But when I took into consideration the sequence 19.g6 f3 2O.Kg3 КеЗ 21.g7
f2 22.g8Q flQ 23.Qg5 + followed by 24.Qc5 this turned out to be sufficient
reason for me to share the point.
Diagram 100:
White has nothing to fear by exchanging rooks. Of course the rook ending is also
drawn. After l.Rxg6 Kxg6 2.Kg2 in fact a composition from Maizelis has arisen.
The game continued with 2...Kg7 3.Kgl.
According to Timman in “New In Chess” this was the first time in his career
that he played such a "distant-opposition” move!
The players still enjoyed themselves with 3...KI7 4.Kfl Кеб 5.Ke2 Kd5 6.Kd2
Kd6 7.Kdl KcS 8.Kcl Kb5 9.КЫ Ka5 lO.Kel (lO.Kal?? f4) Kb4 and by then
both had had enough of it: draw agreed.
Diagram 101:
For the diligent student all mysteries have been cleared beforehand: the pawn
formation is very close to the Reti & Mandler study (Diagram 54), but with
reversed colours and moved up by one rank, with one important difference:
white has an extra tempo with g2-g3.
Supposing that this tempo move had already been played then we can tran-
scribe the corresponding squares from that composition:
Key square: £5
(a - a): f4 - еб, h5
(b-b): g4-f6
(b-b): e4 - f6
(c - c): f3 - e7, g6
(d-d): e3 - f5, f7
and also:
e2-f6 (already value “b”)
£2 - еб, g7 (already value “a”)
by following the explanation of the main formation discussed in Diagram 54. So
White has an easy task as with his free move he will always manage to drive the
black king away from a correspondence. With our “road map” in front of us it
becomes easy to follow the game:
l .Kg4 Kf6 (‘‘b”). Already on the corresponding squares but Black had no choice,
as 1...Кеб? is suicide as 2.Kh5 wins the black h-pawn.
2 . Kf4?! As Van Mil pointed out in “Schaaknieuws” where he analyses the game
“this move doesn’t throw away the win but shows that White pursues a wrong
idea. Easier is of course 2.g3! Kg6 3.Kf3!”. We are in total agreement: with the
free move we throw the black king off balance and then we just follow our map!
2...Ke6 This gets a ?! from Van Mil as he could have set a trap with 2...Kg6. If
White then plays innocently 3.g3? Black answers with 3...Kh5! and draws. Again,
our map is in full agreement: value “a". So White would have to discover over
the board that instead of 3.g3? he must start all over again with 3.Kg4, which in
a psychological sense is quite devastating!
3.g3 Forcing Black off the correspondence.
3...Kf6 4.g4 The first formation from Reti & Mandler: d5, e5 and f5 are all key
squares ;the vertical 3-rank system with the “e" column as axis.
4...Ke6 5.Ke4 Kf6 6.Kd5 Marching forward on the other side.
6...K17 7.KeS h5 8.gS Kg6 9.Ke6 and Black resigned.
The Argentinian endgame connoisseur Francisco Benko pointed out that this
exact pawn configuration with the kings on e3 and d5 is a study from M. Sinar,
published in the “Krimskaja Pravda” in 1984.
Diagram 102:
Well, I could have spared myself the trouble of adjourning! It is a dead draw.
Due to the extra tempo h4-h5, f5 becomes a key square. So we have one set of
corresponding squares, f4-e6, that’s all. No appended squares, as with the white
king on e3, f3 or g3 black could be either on d6, d7 or e7, so it doesn’t matter at
all.
For example: l...Ke5 2.Ke3 Kd6 3.Kf4 Кеб!
But I would have been in good company: famous predecessors had shaken
hands in such a position (just all pieces one row lower): Capablanca - Flohr,
Moscow 1935. 4.h5, Kd6 5.Kf5 Ke7 and there is no play left. So the draw was
agreed without resuming the game.
Diagram 103:
Presumably too nervous in a game of major potential impact on his profession-
al stature, Luc Winants failed to spot the easy draw with l.Kf3 Ke5 2.a4.
Instead he played l.a4 and after l...Kd5 2.Ke2 Kd4 3.Kf3 Ke5 4.Ke2 Kf6
5.Kf3 Kg5 6.Ke2 Kg4 7.Kf2 f3 the position of the next diagram was reached.
Diagram 104:
“Unlucky Luc” played the fatal l.gxf3 + ?? and resigned immediately after
l...Kh3.
After 2.Ke2 f4! the black king is already on a key square and after 2.f4 Kg4
З.КеЗ Kg3 4.Ke2 Black takes the f-pawn and will then queen his a-pawn
unhindered.
The position is of course drawn by l.g3! f4 2.gxf4 Kxf4 3.Kfl and the white
king will arrive at cl just in time.
But most ironic of all was that a token of friendship from the authors arrived
in Luc’s mailbox at about the time he played this game: yes, you guessed
correctly: it was the very first (Dutch) edition of this book!
Diagram 105:
An easy one isn’t it? And this was played at the top board in the encounter
Scotland - Romania of the Women’s Olympiad. As “super-trainer” Mark
Dvoretsky put it in “Training for the Tournament Player", she didn’t know the
basics taught in the first class of any Soviet Chess School, and found the only
way of losing this position (except on time, that is!): she resigned!
From the Blocked Pawn chapter we know that the three squares next to the
enemy pawn only become key squares if the pawn of the attacking side is on the
fifth rank or further. So here White loses the pawn but Black cannot win.
White waits until black captures on d5 and then immediately plays Kd3
(correspondence). For example: l.Kd2 Ke4 2.Kc2 Kxd5 3.Kd3.
Diagram 106:
White should have left the queens on the board with l.Qdl + (Qg4 2.Qd7), but
went for a lost pawn ending instead, a decision resulting from severe time
pressure.
After l.Kxh3 Qhl+ 2.Qh2 Qxh2+ 3.Kxh2 Kg4 4.Kg2 £4 5.gxf4 Kxf4 6.Kf2
Ke4 he passes the (second) time-control and has some time for reflection. What
is better, to leave the black pawns united, or to isolate them with 7.c6?
In general the defending side has more of a fighting chance for a draw against
isolated pawns. Here it does not matter that much: both alternatives lose in the
end, but 7.c6!? would have offered more possibilities for Black to go wrong.
After 7.c61? Ьхсб 8.Ke2 c5 the position appears to be similar to Vaganian -
Sunye because of the pawn structure (see Diagram 23). However, there is just
one huge (!) difference: the attacking king has already broken through.
(Compare also with Diagram 34).
No need any longer for careful manoeuvering on corresponding squares a
straightforward pawn run will do:
9.Kd2 Kd4 10.Kc2 a5 ll.Kd2 (only move to avoid Kd3), a4 (Diagram 35)
12.Kc2 (again, only move), КеЗ 13.Kc3 a3 and wins, for example 14.Kc4 Kd2
15.Kxc5 Kc3 etc.
The game continued with:
7.Ke2 Kd4 (7...Kd5 would have avoided again a possible 8.c6) 8.Kd2 Kxc5 9.Kc3 b5??
And Black throws away the win!
“Unbelievable” declares Roofthoofd in the local chess magazine ‘TAM-TAM’,
“because I knew this pawn ending!
Black should have played 9...КЬ5 Ю.КЬЗ a5 U.Kb2 Kb4 12.Kc2 Ka3 13.КЫ
a4 14.Kal b5 15.КЫ Ь4 16.Kal b3 17.КЫ b2 and wins.
But white replied: 10.a3??, returning the favour and the half-point. The pawn
should have stayed on a2, with the white king moving to bl at the appropriate
moment. For example: 1О.КЬ2 (Ю.КЬЗ a5 П.КсЗ is easier) Kb4 11.КЫ! Ka3
12.Kal a5 13.КЫ b4 14.Kal a4 15.КЫ b3 16.axb3 axb3 17.Kal with a draw”.
“Moving a pawn like that is the same as giving a piece away” (Herman).
10...a5
Have you noticed that we have arrived at a three-rank system (on columns
“c”, “d” and “e”)? By definition Black wins if he gets to one of the key squares
c4, d4 or e4. And this cannot be avoided:
ll.Kd3 Kd5 12.Kc3 Ke4 (that was quick!) 13.Kd2 Kd4 14.Kc2 Kc4 15.Kb2 Kd3
16.Kb3 Kd4 (16...Kd2 is correct. After the text move white can force repetition
with 17.Kc2 Kc4 18.Kb2) 17.Kb2 a4 and White resigned.
Diagram 107:
Black played l...Re5?? a blunder, as it leads by force to a lost pawn ending. He
should have played l...Rc34-, followed by 2...Rc2 which would secure the draw.
The game continued with: 2.Rxa3 Rxe6 3.Re3! Kf7 4.Rxe6 Kxe6 5.Kg4 Kf6
6.Kh5 Kg7 7.Kg5 h6+ 8.Kf5 Kf7 9.h4 and Black resigned.
Diagram 108:
White continued with l.Bb3! Bxb3 2.Rg7 + ! (an important intermediate
check!) Kf8 З.КхЬЗ Rxf6 4.Rxg4 Ke7 5.Rd4 (cutting the black king off), Rd6
(the only “solution’’, as the rook ending is clearly lost) 6.Rxd6! Kxd6 7.Ka4! Kc6
8.Ka5 Kb7 9.Kb5! ensuring the arrival at a key square, so Black resigned.
Diagram 109:
Yes, by exchanging rooks Black is able to draw in a couple of moves, but he must
play carefully! The rook ending is in this case much more complicated. The con-
clusion of this game is instructive:
l...Rxe3 2.Kxe3 Kf7!
The only move, as after either 2...Kf6?? 3.Kf4 Кеб 4.Kg5 or 2...Kg6?? 3.f4 Kf6
4.Kd4 Кеб 5.Kc5 White pockets the full point.
Key squares are e5 and d5. We find corresponding squares at f4-f6 d4-c6 c4-
d6 because of the tempo move f4.
3.Kd3 Ke7! (once more the only move!) 4,Kc4 Kd6! (showing again that the
rook swap was well thought through, as this is again the only path to the draw)
and a draw was agreed.
Diagram 110:
Black must give up his a-pawn and try to exchange rooks, as his king is better
positioned for the potential pawn ending.
l...Rdl! l...Rcl? with the same idea trying to avoid the rook ending - is drawn
by one tempo: 2.Rxa2 Rc2+ 3.Rxc2 Kxc2 4.Kh3 Kd3 5.g4! hxg4 6.Kxg4! Ke2
7.Kg3! Kfl 8.f4 Ke2 9.fxe5 fxe5 10.Kg2! КеЗ 11. Kfl draws.
2.Ra3+ Ke2 3.Rxa2+ КеЗ 4.Ra3+ Rd3! S. Ra6
The pawn ending is lost for White. For example: 5.Rxd3? Kxd3 6.Kf2 Kd2
7.f4 Kd3 8.Kf3 Kd4 9.f5 Kd3 and wins. Also 6.Kh3 doesn’t help: б... КеЗ,
7.g4 hxg4 8.hxg4 Kf2 9.f4 Ke2! winning.
5...Rd2 + 6.Kh3 (6.Kgl and even 6.КГ1 looks more logical) Kxf3 7.Rxf6+ Kxe4
8.Rh6 Kd3 9.Rxh5 e4 10.Rh8 e3
White still puts up stubborn resistance, contributing to a high-class game.
ll.Kg4 Rdl 12.Rd8+ Ke2 13.Rf8 Rgl 14.Kh4 Kd2 15.Rd8+ Kei 16.g4 e2
17.g5 Kf2 18-Rf8+ КеЗ 19.Re8+ Kd3 2O.Kh5 elQ 21,Rxel Rxel 22.Kg6 Rfl
23.Kh7 Ke4 24.g6
White nearly manages to bring his pawn to the other side. . . .
24...Kf5 25.g7 Rhl+ 26,Kg8 Kg6 27.Kf8 Rfl 4- 28.Kg8 Rai 29.Kh8 Rhl+ and
White resigned.
Diagram 111:
No, even l...Rh4 is insufficient. Although it is Black’s best bet, as the rook
ending is completely drawn. The game course went as follows: l...Rh4 2.Rxh4
gxh4 3.Kf4 f5 and now we have reached the second formation from the analysis
of the game Vaganian - Sunye (Diagram 28).
The game continued with: 4.Ke3
4.Ke5 Kg5 5.h3 Kg6 6.Kd4! Kh5 (or 6...Kh6) is lost as in Diagram 77.
4... Kf7 5.Kf3 Кеб 6.Kf4 Kf6 7.Ke3 Ke5 8.Kf3 f4 9.Kf2 Ke4 10.Ke2 f3+ ll.Kel
On the colour of black’s h-pawn. Also ll.Kf2 Kf4 12.Kei or 12.Kgl, but not
ll.Kfl? КеЗ and Black wins.
H...Ke3 12.Kfl f2 13.h3 Kf3 stalemate.
A fitting end for a fighter such as Larsen!
Diagram 112:
No. It leads to an equal pawn ending: l...Nxh3 2.Kg2 Nf4+ 3.Nxf4 gxf4 4.Kf3
Kg6 5.Kxf4 Kf6 6.Kf3! Ke5 7,Ke3 Kd5 8.Kd3: draw.
Because of the h-pawn only h4, g4 and f4 are key squares. If 6...Kg5 7.Kg3 f6
8.Kf3 Kh4 9.Kf4 and Black has no extra tempo.
Diagram 113:
White’s better pawn structure and his extra tempi make technique easy: l.f3!
(controlling the square e4) l...Ke6 2.Kg4, Kf6 3.Kh5 Kg7 (or 3...Kf5 4.g3) 4.g4
f6 5.f4 Kh7 6.g5! resigns: 1-0.
Diagram 114:
Yes: l...h6 2.Ke3 Kc4 3.Ke2 Kd4??
3...Kc3 4.Ke3 h5! and Black wins with a horizontal three rank system: 5.Ke2
Kc2 б.КеЗ Kdl 7.Kd4 Ke2 8.Ke5 Kf3 9.Kf6 Kxg3 10.Kxg6 Kg4 etc.
4.Kf2??
Now 4.Kd2 is enough for a draw. After 4...Ke4 5.Ke2 h5 6.Kf2 Kd3 7.Kf3
White takes the correspondence and has all six necessary squares at his disposal.
4...Kd3 5.Kf3 Kd2 (5...h5) 6.Kf2 (6.g4 h5 is hopeless) 6...h5 7.Kf3 Kei 8.Kg2
Ke2 9.КЫ Kfl (or Kf3) 10.Kh2 Kf2 ll.Kh3 Kgl and White resigned.
Diagram 115:
Definitely not! In the “Tiempo de Ajedrez” January 1994 issue, grandmaster
Oscar Panno wrote an interesting article about pawn endings. He started with
this position, which later on I learned was an analysis diagram of a game he
played against Miguel Quinteros.
This position somehow challenges our theory. Which are the key squares? In
order to win, white needs to grab black’s e-pawn. So e4 is number one. D4 is
technically not a key square because Black can achieve counterplay with Kf4. But
to reach f4, Black has to leave the square of white’s а-pawn. Therefore d4 is, in
practice, also a key square.
With the white king on f4 Black has to play Kd4, leaving the а-pawn square,
for active counterplay. But not Kd5 (still in the a-pawn square), due to the move
КеЗ and now Black must give his pawn away.
We can conclude that:
(a - a): e3 - d5
is our first set of corresponding squares.
For the same reason, with the white’s king on c3 or g3, black’s only option is
Kd5. This turns squares c3 and g3 into value “a” as well.
What about the square g4?
With the white king on this square, Black’s only chance is again active
counterplay with Kd4, as we know already that l...Kd5 loses because of the reply
2.Kg3. So, again, technically it’s not a key square, but we could deduce that g4 -
d4 is a correspondence. In fact the same as f4 - d4. A strange coincidence that
alters the “normal” way of reasoning. We could say that, in some cases, active
counterplay may change our relatively static way of constructing corresponding
squares.
After this philosophising, we can see that if the white king walks to the
kingside through b3, c2, d2, e2, £2, g2, h3 it’s clear that Black must pass on the
squares c6 and d6. Any attempt to occupy d5 is punished by КеЗ, КеЗ or Kg3.
Now (white king on h3 and black king on c6 or d6) White wins with Kg4!, still
controlling g3. The threat is l.Kf4, Kd5 2.КеЗ with “zugzwang”. If Black plays
l...Kd5, White wins with 2.Kg3!, Kd4 (2...Kd6 3.Kf4 Kd5 4.КеЗ) З.аб and
White has the upper hand by one tempo.
A difficult ending to explain by our theory. It’s almost an exception!
Diagram 116:
Of course not! The black king would go straight to the key square e5 (see
Diagram 15). Therefore Balashov made an easy draw with l.Rb7+ Kg6 2.Ra7
Rb6 3.Kf3 h6 (after this move e5 is no longer a key square in any pawn ending)
4.Kg3 Kf6 5.Ra5 Кеб 6.Kg2 Rd6 and a draw was agreed.
Diagram 117:
Easy technique for the reigning world champion: l.Ra8! Bxe7 2.Ra7! resigns.
After 2...Kf8 3.Rxe7 Rxe7 4.Nxe7 Kxe7 5.Kh2 Kf6 6.Kh3! Black doesn’t reach h5
in time.
Diagram 118:
No. If l...Nxd6? White wins easily after 2.Rxd6+ Rxd6 3.Nxd6 Kxd6 4.Kxc4
Kc6 because of the extra tempo 5.g3 etc.
Black, is lost anyway however. The game continued with l...Nf6 2.Rxc4 Rb7
3.KB4 Rb8 4.Ka5 Ra8+ 5.KB4 Rai 6.Kc5 Rei 7.Kc6 Rdl 8.Nc7+ Kf7 and Black
resigned.
Diagram 119:
Yes: l.Rdxd7 + Rxd7 2.Rxd7+ Kxd7 3.Kh4 Кеб 4.Kg5 Kf7 S.f4 Kg7 6.h3! Kh7.
6...КГ7 7.Kh6 Kf6 8.h4 Kf7 9.KH7 Kf6 10.Kg8 is similar.
7 .Kf6 h4
Or 7...Kh6 8.h4 Kh7 9.K(7 Kh6 10.Kg8.
8 .gxh4 Kh6 9.Kf7 resigns: 1-0.
If 9...Kh7 10.h5 gxh5 11.h4 etc.
Diagram 120:
Good technique was shown by going for an easy pawn ending with l...Qxg4
2.hxg4 Nxg4+ 3.Kg3 Nxe3 4.fxe3 c4 (Or 4....Kf6 5.Kf4 c4) S.eS dxe5 6.e4 Kg6
7.Kg4 f5+ (Easier is 7...f6 8.Kh4 f5) 8.exfS+ Kf6 9.Kf3 Kxf5 Ю.КеЗ e4 U.Kf2
Kf4 12.Ke2 e3 13.Kel KeS 14.КП Kf4? (14...Kf5 15.Kel Kf4) IS.Kel KfS
16.Kfl KeS 17.Kel e2?! (If this was the idea, then it could have been done
already on move 13) 18.Kf2 Kf4! and White resigned.
Diagram 121:
Surely you would not resign as Timman did! After l...Kd6 2.h4 Kxc6 3.f5 Kd6
(Timman probably thought that 3...gxf5 4.h5 Kd7 5.g6 hxg6 6.h6! was forced)
4.f6 and an interesting position has arisen.
The important key square is c7, winning the pawn. The squares e7, f7 and g7
are not realistic. With white’s king on c6 the only answer for Black is to play the
king to d8. This is the only correspondence in the position, and therefore, it’s a
dead draw. If there would have been any way White could have saved the tempo
that had to be wasted with 2.h4 then it would have been a win instead.
There could have followed 4...Kd7 5,Kf3, Ke8 6.Kg4 (or 6.Ke4 Kd7 7.Kd5
Ke8! 8.Kc6 Kd8) and now either 6...Kf8 7.h5 Kf7 8.hxg6+ Kxg6! or 6...KF7 7.h5
c5 8.h6 lead to a draw.
Acknowledging defeat in the diagrammed position is of course not as bad as
the resignation in exercise 105 but still, at grandmaster level it’s pretty awful!
This missed opportunity I saw first in a letter from Sven Joachim to “Die
Schachwoche” (8/1996 page 27). Later on, in “New In Chess” (2/1996 page 43),
Timman quotes in an article named “Blunders” that it was the worst blunder
from the Hoogovens Tournament.
In the diagram White had just played l.g5. Timman says that by playing
instead l.Kf3 Kd6 2.Ke4 Kxc6 3.Ke5 it’s a win. He goes on with 3...Kd7 4.Kf6
c6 (4...c5 5.Ke5 Kc6 6.h4 is the same) 5.h3 c5 6.Ke5 Kc6 7.h4 c4 8.Kd4 Kb5 9,f5.
But this is still a draw as 9...gxf5 10.g5 (10,gxf5 c3 is a normal draw) 10...f4 is
even better for Black.
I don’t think that Timman will retain fond memories of this particular
endgame...
Diagram 122:
No, but it was already a draw. l...Bxf3 2.Kxf3 Kc5 З.КеЗ (3.Kg3 Kxb5 4.fxg5
hxg5 5. h4 is also sufficient for drawing) KxbS 4.Kf3?? (4.fxg5! hxg5 5.Kd4 and
then 6.Ke5 f4 7.Ke4 followed by 8.h4, was an easy draw) 4...Kc4 and black heads
for the key squares. White still played 5.Kg3 but then she resigned without
waiting for the obvious.
Diagram 123:
Yes, White is winning. The game went on with l.e6 Kd6 2.Kxd4 Kxe6 3.Ke4
Kd6 4.Kf5 KdS S.KxgS Kd4 6.Kf4 Kc3 7.g5 Kxb3 8.g6 Ka3 9.g7 b3 10.g8Q b2
U.Qg6 Ka2 12.Qc2 (12.Ke3) 12... Kal 13.Ke4 blQ 14.Qxbl+ Kxbl 15.Kd4
Kb2 16.Kc4 and White wins as Black is unable to block the white king off from
the side in front of the pawn.
Diagram 124:
No, no draw here, as the extra tempo moves on the kingside are sufficient for a
win: l.Rc7+ Kb3 2.Rxg7 blQ 3.Rb7+ Kc2 4.Rc7+ Kb2 S.Rb7+ Kcl 6.Rxbl +
Kxbl 7.Kdl Kb2 ( 7...h5) 8.Kd2 hS and White resigned as it’s an easy horizon-
tal three rank system for Black.
Diagram 125:
l.RdxdS!, exd5 2.Rc6+ and Black resigned: 2...Ke7 3.Rc7+ Kf6 4.Rxg7 Kxg7
5.Kd4 etc.
Diagram 126:
l.KeS Kf8! 2.Ke4 (2.Kf4) 2...Ke8 3.Kf4 Kf8 4.Ke5 Kf7
Here the only move: if 4...Ke8 5.Кеб Kf8 6.f7 a5 7.Kf6 a4 8.Кеб.
5.Kf5 aS 6.Ke5 Ke8!
Or 6...Kg8! but not 6...Kf8? 7.Кеб Ke8 8.f7+ Kf8 9.Kf6 a4 Ю.Кеб.
7.Ke4 Kf8 8.КГ4 Ke8 9.KeS Kf7 (9...Kf8 Ю.Кеб Ke8 ll.f7+ Kf8 12.Ke6) lO.KfS
a4 H.KeS Kf8 12.Ke4 Ke8 13.Kf4 Kf8 14.Ke5 Ke8 15.Ke6 Kf8 16.f7 Kg7 17.Ke7
Kh7 18.Kf6 and checkmate in two moves. A neat demonstration on how to play
with and against, extra tempo moves!
Diagram 127:
l.Kc3! (This was Miguel’s sealed move) l...Rhl (l...Kg6 2.Kd4 is a draw;
l...Re2 2.h4! g4 3.Kd4 Kg6 4.Rc8! Kf5 5.Rf8 is also drawn; but l...Rcl+ is the
variation we are really interested in and which is analysed further on). The game
continued with 2.h4! gxh4 3.gxh4 Rh3+ 4.Kd4 Kg6 5.Rc7! Rxh4+ б.КеЗ and a
draw was agreed.
The pawn ending to be investigated takes shape after l...Rcl+ 2.Kd4 RxcS
3-KxcS g4 4.Kd4 Kg6 S.Ke4 KgS б.КеЗ KfS 7.Kd4 f6 8.exf6 eS+.
We ask our readers to pay special attention to this position. Compare it to
exercise number 80 (Ivanov, P - Milev) and try to assess it. Can Black can use
the same winning method as has been indicated there?
The answer is no! International Master Miguel Andres Mendez de
Sotomayor, who now lives in Argentina, shares with us his deep analysis for the
adjourned game:
9.Kd3!l
But not 9.Kd5? Kxf6 10.Kc4 Kg6! (or 10...Kg5) U.Kc5 Kg5 12.Kc4 Kf6
13.Kd3 Ke7! 14.Ke3 Kd6 15.Kf2. e4! in the same fashion as we have seen in
Milev’s game.
9... Kxf6 10.КеЗ! Ke7
After 10...Кеб ll.Ke4 Kd6 12.Kf5 is here just enough for a draw. This coun-
terplay was not sufficient in exercise 80.
ll.Kf2! Kd6 12.Kg2 KdS
12...e4 13.h4. gxh3+ 14.Kxh3 Ke5 15.Kg2 with a draw.
13.h4 gxh3+ 14.Kxh3 Kd4 and again 15.Kg2 with an easy draw.
Chapter 19: Bibliography and Index
For the development of “The Final Countdown” we consulted the following literature:
Andriessen W......................“New In Chess”, 3/1988, 7/1994, 8/1996
Averbakh, Y..................“Comprehensive Chess Endings", Vol.4 (1987)
Balemans, T ......................“De compositie van het eindspel” (1993)
Bahr, W..............“Opposition und kritische Felder im Bauerendspiel” (1936)
Bianchetti, R .........“Contribute alia Teoria dei Finali di Soli Pedoni” (1925)
Berger,J ...........................“Theorie und Praxis der Endspiele” (1922)
Buijs, J & Hendriks, R ........“Spiegelen, Springen, Schuiven, Draaien" (1993)
Cheron, A .........................“Lehr-und Handbuch der Endspiele" (1957)
Cvetkov, A...........................................“Pawn Endings” (1985)
Dedrle, F...................................................“Studie” (1925)
Duchamp, M & Halberstadt, V ..........................“Eopposition et les cases
conjuguees sont reconciliees" (1932)
Durand, P..............“Strategic raisonnee des fins des parties" (1871-1873)
Dvoretsky, M....................“Trainingfor the Tournament Player" (1993)
Fahrni, H ..................................“Das Endspiel im Schach” (1917)
Fine, R ........................................“Basic Chess Endings" (1941)
Gaige, J..........................................“Chess Personalia” (1987)
Hiebra, A ...............“Tiempo de Ajedrez”, 1/1994, article by Panno, O:
“Las casillas relacionadas у un supuesto final inedito”
Hooper, D & Whyld, К........................“The Oxford Companion to Chess”
(2nd ed. 1992)
Кап, I & Bondarevsky, I ......“N.D. Grigarjew, Pionnenkunstenaar!!" (1954)
Kasparov, G.....................................“The Test of Time” (1986)
Krabbe, T..................................“Nieuwe Schaakkuriosa” (1977)
Le Lionnais, F & Maget, E .................“Dictionnaire des Echecs” (1967)
Lowenthal, J................................“Morphy’s games of chess” (1860)
Maizelis, I......................................“Finales de Peones” (1969)
Matanovic, A ......................“Encyclopaedia of Chess Endings” (1982)
Matanovic, A.......................“Chess Informant", issues 17, 28, 44, 45
Rabinovich, I...........................................“Endspielj” (1927)
Rey Ardid, R.....................................“Finales de Ajedrez” (1944)
Reti, R ..................“Schachendspiele” (edited by A. Mandler in 1931)
Sinar, M & Archakov, V ............“Harmonija Peschechnogo Etuda” (1990)
Tattersall, С E.C.............................“A Thousand Endgames" (1920)
Van Damme, H .................................“TAM-TAM", 6/1985, 10/1985
van der Wiel, J......................“Schaaknieuws”, nr. 5/1993, nr. 45/1994.
van Riemsdijk, D.D.............................“Jogo Aberto”, 7/1985, 12/1986
Widmer, W ..........................................“Die Schachwoche”, 8/1996
Zuylen van Nyevelt, P...............................“La Superiorite aux Echecs
mise a la portee de tous et particulierement
des Dames qui aiment cet amusement” (1792)
as well as the private archives of H.C. van Riemsdijk.
Index
Alapin 17
Alburt 90
Andres 105, 124
Andriessen 125
Anikaev 95
Archakov 83, 125
Armas J 105
Asfora.M 92
Averbakh 15, 45, 83, 114, 125
Azmaiparashvili 63
Bahr 83, 125
Balashov 102, 125
Balemans 83, 125
Barlov 94, 99
Becerra 99
Benko,F 117
Benko,P 41, 92
Berg 56
Berger 81, 84, 88, 125
Bernstein 90
Bianchetti 83, 125
Boey 42
Bondarevsky 125
Botvinnik 52, 54, 113
Buijs 83, 125
Byrne, R 103
Cao 84, 86
Capablanca 117
Carvalho 89
Cassidy 15
Chemin.V 105
Cheron 83, 125
Chiburdanidze 61
Coull 98
Cvetkov 110, 111, 125
Damiano 80
Damiao 80
Dedrle 15, 49, 50, 81, 84, 85, 86, 125
Denker 96
Donev 94
Dorfman 95
Douven 102
Drtina 11, 81, 106
Duchamp 81, 82, 125
Durand 80, 125
Dvoretsky 62, 118. 125
Eolian 63
Euwe 102, 114
Fahrni 17, 22, 81, 125
Farago 96, 114
Filep 93
Filipov 92
Fine 57, 82, 114, 125
Fischer 88
Flohr 117
Fogarasi 99
Fraschini 72, 73, 75, 76
Gaidanov 92
Gaige, J 125
Georgiev, Kir. 94, 112
Gereben 92
Gijssen 7
Gligoric 88
Gooris 98
Grigoriev 7, 27, 81, 83, 87
Gufeld 63, 64
Gurevich, D 103
Hajenius 69, 70, 97
Halberstadt 81, 82, 125
Hamann 42
Hansen, L-B 97, 98
Hendriks 83, 125
Hiebra, A 125
Hooper 125
Horowitz 96
Hort 103
Huyck 69, 70
Ivanov, P 90, 124
Ivkov 87
Jimenez 87
Joachim 122
Kamada 104
Kan 125
Kasparov 30, 32, 90, 108, 125
Klarenbeek, H 99
Kling 23
Kogan 45
Krabbe 42, 125
Kuhner 91
Lalic 100
Larsen 100, 120 Reti 58, 62, 116, 117, 125
Lasker 68 Rey Ardid 83, 125
Lavrov 101 Ribli 41
Le Lionnais 80, 125 Rocha, A 95
Liebert 95 Roofthoofd 98, 118
Ligterink 102 Sadler 104
Lim, M 104 Samisch 102
Lopez de Segura, R 80 Schiissler 99
Lopez Jimenez 72, 73, 75, 76 Seirawan 30
Lowenthal 91, 109, 125 Sergienko 101
Machado, H 104 Shirov 103
Maget 80, 125 Sinar 26, 83, 114, 117, 125
Maizelis 8, 10, 15, 33, 40, 41, 42, 83, Smejkal 93, 100, 111
116, 125 Stanciu 98
Mandler 47, 58, 62, 116, 117 Stein 93
Mariotti 93 Sturm 91
Markowski 104 Sunye 33, 35, 41, 42, 118, 120
Maroczy 88, 90, 108 Suzuki, H 101
Marshall 88 Tarjan 100
Mason 88 Tattersall 15, 81, 106, 126
Matanovic 125 Timman 96, 103, 116, 122, 123
Mattison 14 Touzane 84, 86
Milev 90, 124 Triebe de Mello, О 101
Milos 6 Tringov 93
Moravec 89 Trois 50
Morphy 91, 109 Ulenaers 6
Nasimovic 89 Vaganian 33, 35, 41, 42, 118, 120
Nenarokov 87 Van Damme 126
Neustadtl 25, 94, 110 van der Wiel 126
Neuwald 89 van Mil 97, 116, 117
Nickoloff 91 van Riemsdijk, D. D. 126
Nogueiras 99 van Riemsdijk, H 49, 50, 92, 95, 96,
Nunn 100 105,
Onat 95 van Wijgerden 10
Panno 101, 121, 125 Vazquez, R 91
Parma 93 Velimirovic 100, 102
Pelikian 105 Watson 61, 62
Petrov 56 Weenink 48, 49
Philidor 80 Whyld 125
Porges 94 Widmer 126
Preti 80 Wiersma 97
Quinteros 101, 121 Wilms 97
Rabinovich 81, 125 Winants 97, 98, 117
Ree 41 Yudovich 45
Reichhelm 68 Yusupov 96
Reis 104 Ziatdinov 94
Reshevsky 103 Zuylen van Nyevelt 82, 85, 126