Types of endgames

Endgames can be divided into three categories:
 
1. Theoretical Endgames (TE) They are positions where the correct line of play is generally known and well-analyzed, so the solution is a matter of technique.  Before the computer they were hundreds of TE . Now, with the Endgame Tablebases they are thousands. Nevertheless just few dozens are worth to know, depending of the players strength. The technique achieved in the learning process will likely be enough to apply in other positions.

TE usually include very few pieces and can be defined by a formula. I .ex. the famous Lucena position is a R+P vs. R ending.

the Lucena Position = R+P vs. r

2. Practical endgames (PE)

Positions arising in actual games. They use to be more complex with several pawns and pieces, therefore not suitable for formula definition. The knowledge acquired studying TE provides the technique required to play PE with skill, since PE endgames can frequently be divided in partial theoretical problems.

i.ex. The following position arouse in the 13th game of the WCC match, Spassky-Fischer. It’s complex and difficult to synthesis with a formula:

            Spassky – Fischer, game 13th

3. Endgame studies (ES)

These are artificially created by a chess composer. They could be divided in two sub-types:

a. Artistic studies. They are characterized by their beauty, normally involving brilliant tactical blows. The positions use to look weird and almost impossible to encounter in practical chess

mate in three study

b. Theoretical studies. Composers also like to back theoretical knowledge with neat solutions. Many TE have been stated from a previous composition.  The Lucena position i.ex., was composed by Salvio il puttino in 1637

Blending theoretical knowledge
We will start with a basic theoretical ending:

white to win or black to draw

Most of us know that to achieve a draw, black king should reach f7/f8 squares right after white takes in h7. Therefore, if it’s white to move, will win, but if it’s blacks turn, the game will end in a draw.

Now we will go to a second theoretical ending. Is similar to the first one adding a knight.

 black to draw

In this ending black can only play Kf7 or Kf8 as we learned in the previous position, and move from one square to the other (alternate white/black squares). Whites answer can only be a knight move since his king is caged and blocking the pawn. The knight, by nature, also switches from white to black squares. So if black plays Kf8?, white knight will follow hitting a white square (let’s say, Nc7 will hit white squares e8/e6), and in a couple of moves, the knight will take control of f8 while the bK is in f7, and black will have to retreat from the drawing zone. Therefore, the concrete solution is Kf7!. In general terms, the weak king must move to the same coloured square of the knight.

Taking both examples into account, the third step will be to analyze a more complex ending adding a bishop to the game. The following study composed by Loyd in 1860:

Loyd, 1860

Black needs to promote the pawn. The manoeuver is Kg1, Ng2 (to block the bishop from the diagonal), h2, h1=Q.  White has to resources: take the pawn at h3/h1 and if it doesn’t work, block whites king in h1 as we saw in the previous example. In the latter, black will try to unblock his king with the knight.

Loyd - 1860

Result: 1/2-1/2

Site: white to draw

Date: 2012.01.01

[...] 1.¥d7! forcing black to move the pawn. Other moves like Bc6+?, lose

(1.¥c6+? ¢g1! preparing h2 and the blocking move, Ng2, while preventing wK to reach f1/f2
2.¥d7 h2 3.¥c6 ¤g2+°)

1...h2 2.¥c6+ ¢g1 3.¥h1! wK will move between e1/e2 and will step forth to f1/f2 (depending of the position of the knight), just after bK takes in h1.
3...¢xh1 4.¢f2! draw. wK must step in the same colour square as the knight

Powered by Aquarium




Practical application. Gashimov vs. Ponomariov, WC 2011
 
 This game was played in World Cup 2011 held on Khanty-Masnyk. Ponomariov hesitated a bit because he didn't remember exactly how to coordinate the knight with wK moves. Finally he managed to convert.

How to study endgames?

Endgames are known as boring.. Why is that:

1. For the amateur player, is more amusing to study openings with fancy names.  I play the Najdorf, the Marshall defence, the Fried Liver attack… In this way, we sense paired in someway with the GMs. “My repertoire is the same than Fischers, or Kasparov”

2. Amateurs are more focused in tactics which will boost their rating in a more effective way than endings they will hardly reach.  Beside, tactics are more rewarding aesthetically than middlegame strategy or endgame technic. Even pros quote their best game as one full of tactical brilliancies.

3. Let’s suppose that an amateur decides to study endgames as part of  a whole training program. How to study that? The frequent step is to get one of the best endorsed books available. I.ex. Dvoretsky’s “Endgame Manual”, Muller’s “Fundamental Chess Endings” or Nunn’s “Chess Endings, vol.1 & 2”. The problem is that these are encyclopedic works targeted to the master level. Thou, the amateur will randomly choose some positions, go through a load of variations, understand almost nothing and leave the book back in the shelf (beside others who he hardly understands too). And the sense that endings are boredom.

Now, the first question is:

It’s necessary to study endgames through books?   The answer is NO. Today, there are lots of non printed material that will make studying easier. I.ex. videos. They are loads of them in YT, Chessvideos.tv…Even paying sites like chess.com or ICC are uploading some of their videos in YT. Beside of videos the are also quite a bunch of training software. Computer workout is available in sites like chess.com, ICC; Playchess.com or Chesstempo. Chessbase and Convetka also sell specialized training software. I.ex. Convetka’s Total Chess Endings by Pandenko, has about 2500 exercises plus theory tips in a wide range of endgames (target, 1500 to 2400 ELO).

Now. Let’s say we buy a book. Which one?

As mentioned, “big books” are targeted to advanced-master players. The fact is that endgame study should be adapted to players strength. The amount of time delivered to endgames and the type of endgames one should now. They are some basic endgames everybody should know. Basic checkmates, single pawn endings… The intermediate player should achieve some more knowledge but NOT MUCH MORE. Two books we endorse for the U2000 player are:

- DE LA VILLA: “100 endgames one should know”. Really, one may not learn the 100. Less than half is enough. The plus of this book is that the examples are very well explained and help to grasp THE IDEA more than memorizing positions.

- SILMAN: “Complete endgame course”. The advantage of this one, unlikely of its pairs, is that the book is structured according to the readers chess strength. So one will find endgames for beginners, intermediate, advanced and master level. Good guidance of what one should learn and may not.

Time to invest studying endgames?

Again, it depends of the player strength. The beginner should just know basic checkmates and how to promote a pawn. Intermediates should focus more in tactics, which will be the most rewarding. Thus, the time spent in endgames could be about 10/20% of the whole. This may increment considerably in the advanced/master level. The reason is that their chess understanding, globally speaking, will be higher and their games will more likely reach the endgame.

Finally, how to study the endgame?

Watching videos and computer workout (problem solving) don’t require much effort. Reading articles online is also an easy task. We recommend an added training mode. Use an engine. Take a problem, from a book or the web, and display the position on the board. Then play it against the computer. First, the computer plays the side who has to reach the goal (win/draw). After few tries and grasping the idea read and played by the engine, switch sides and try to reach the goal yourself. Switching engines is also a plus. The reason is that each engine is programmed differently, thus, reacts to some moves with different variations (i.ex. more stubborn vs. more flexible defence). There are plenty of free engines online.

ENDGAME Study Group

http://www.chess.com/groups/home/endgame