The Chess Mind

First we had this post, which spawned follow-ups one and two. In this post, we'll follow up on a king-and-pawn endgame challenge from the first sequel.

Here's our starting position:



In the variation that could have arisen in the game, it would be Black's move here and he'd win with the simple 1...b4. The challenge, however, is to assume it's White's move here, and to figure out what the result ought to be. It's a moderately challenging position, and while I'm not 100% sure I've got it right, I think I have. For better or worse, here it is.

In the previous post, I offered the following position and asked if Kasimjanov, with White and the move, had any worthwhile tactical shots here.



The answer...is no, but not for want of a superficially seductive possibility.

One might notice 1.Bxh6, trying to exploit the fact that both defenders of the pawn are pinned. However, while the g-pawn is in an absolute pin, the Nf5 is not in the same situation, and thus 1...Nxh6 is possible and, thanks to the counterattack on the White queen, desirable as well. The fun isn't over yet, however: 2.Rxf7 Nxg4 and now there's a zwischenzug: 3.Rxf8+ Kxf8 4.hxg4.



White has regained the pawn and, with the move, can prevent immediate disaster with 5.Kf2. Unfortunately, it's Black to move here, and he wins with 4...b4, forcing promotion (5.Kf2 b3). [Kudos to Jon Jacobs for submitting the correct solution.]

So 1.Bxh6 doesn't work. White's best move, from the original diagram, is probably the subtle retreating move 1.Bc1 (with the idea of 2.Ba3), when 1...Qe6 (2.Ba3 Rf7) leaves Black a slight edge.

In the game, Kasimjanov chose neither 1.Bxh6 nor 1.Bc1, but blundered with 1.Kh2??, when 1...Ne3 won the exchange and the game shortly thereafter. (The remainder went 2.Bxe3 Qxf1 3.e6 Qf6 4.h4 Re8 5.d5 Qe5+ 6.Bf4 Qxd5 7.Bxh6 and White either resigned or lost on time.)

But let's return to the position of the second diagram:



Let's suppose this time that it's White to move. Your mission, if you choose to accept it, is to determine the correct result in this situation.

[A reminder: please do NOT submit your suggestions in the comments section, as it is likely to undermine others' efforts to solve it for themselves. If you wish to (dis)confirm your solutions, email them to me using the Contact link.]

A couple of weeks ago, I presented a couple of knight vs. bishop endings in which the side with the knight held the draw, even down a couple of pawns, by constructing an unbreakable blockade. (See 1, 2, and 3.) To atone for this among fans of the bishop, I subsequently offered this position:



How did Lazaro Bruzon finish off Lenier Dominguez in their game from the 2005 Cuban Championship? Click here for the answer.

In this post I presented the problem, and in a second post I linked to a (very big) hint to help the reader solve it. If any mystery remains, post-hint, it will now dissipate into a cloudless sky of complete understanding - or so I hope. Enlightenment is available here.

[Kudos to Chris Falter, who submitted a perfect, complete solution.]

In response to my post, A Halloween-Style Lesson in Technique from a GM, prime# directed my attention to the game Keres-Goldenov from the 1952 USSR Championship. In that game, the Estonian legend simplified his technical task by returning his extra exchange to reach a routinely winning pawn ending - the same general idea I presented in my post.

Prime#'s email brought to mind a second example, the game Lombardy-Fischer from the 1960 US Championship (game 25 in Fischer's My 60 Memorable Games). There too, the timely return of an extra exchange (ironically, here, as in the Keres game and the one I posted (at least in my analysis), all three rooks come off as a result of the liquidation) led to a straightforward win in the ensuing pawn ending.

As "they" say, repetition is the mother of learning, so have a look-see, and click here for the Keres and Fischer games.

Watching online blitz the other day, I tuned in to a game that had just reached the following position.



White's a GM, Black's an IM, and both players still have 1:30 left in this 3-minute game. Black's only alternative to resignation is to make something happen with his passers, and that's unlikely to happen without the king's help. Black's king was cut off by White's Rc6, so Black played 35...Re8-e6.

Now what? In the game, White played very confusedly:

36.Rc4 Nd6 37.Rc7+ Kf6 38.a4 f4 39.Rc3 e4 40.b5 Nf5 41.Rc6 e3 42.Rxe6+ Kxe6 43.b6 Kd6 44.a5 Kc6 45.Rh2 f3 46.Kc1 f2 0-1

Very strange, and White still had 57 seconds left, too, in the final position.

Before noting what White should have played in the diagrammed position (which many of you have already figured out in any case), let me offer my view about the number one thing a player should do when one has a winning material advantage: stop the opponent's chances for counterplay. Often that means trading pieces, but there are other common techniques: protecting (significant) weaknesses, fixing the opponent's pawn majority, protecting possible points of penetration, and so on.

Think about it this way: one can only get a single point from a win, so overkill isn't useful. The main thing is to bring home the full point, not to bathe oneself in glory, win with five extra queens - or five extra knights, for that matter. (Not that such stunts aren't entertaining, but right now we're focusing on winning).

Back to the diagram. The simple solution is to liquidate: 36.Rxe6 Kxe6 (36...Nc3+ 37.Kb2 Nxe2 38.Rxe5 is just as bad) and now 37.Rxe4! is self-evidently decisive: 37...fxe4 38.Kc1 (not necessary, but remember: simplest is best) 38...Kd5 39.Kd2 Kc4 40.c3 and it's over: White marches his king up the e-file and collects Black's goodies, while Black cannot (safely) reciprocate, as ...Kxc3 allows b5-6-7-8-touchdown.

It's surprising that White didn't choose this very simple procedure, but let the GM's loss be our gain: we'll never get this exact position, but opportunities to win by liquidating, even at the cost of some of our material advantage, will come to us as long as we're playing the game. Or, to cite the old adage, an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure - it's as true in chess as in life.