Seth_Xoma wrote on 06/14/09 at 03:19:21:


I disagree.

Endings cannot be memorized because they are different from one another, it’s enough to have just one pawn on one square too close and all the knowledge is all a load of crap.

The skills to play endgames are needed. The stronger player, the better plays them. Learning calculations and planning we learn to play endgames, as good calculations and good planning make up strong endgame play. Knowledge is important mostly in openings. Openings have to be mastered because otherwise nothing can be accomplished. 

For players under 2000elo learning of endgames is rather inessential since they reach equal endgames seldom. Their games almost always ends in middlegame. It’s worth for them to improve middlegame play and openings knowledge.

Girkassa, 

Thank you for sharing this position!  I looked at it for a few seconds and thought Rf5-f1 should win easily.  What I missed was Black's checks from in front!  Excellent play to beat an IM!

Smyslov_Fan wrote on 06/15/09 at 07:53:35:

What I was saying was more specifically for this thread where we talk about whether there is any point to studying endgame theory. In that context rook endgame knowledge is surely the number one thing that makes a practical difference at most levels, because rook endgames are so common. I've had plenty of rook endgames, but for example I've never had to demonstrate that I know how to mate with B+N. So I was trying to say that from a practical perspective it may well be worth risking not knowing details about certain rare endgames, if one e.g. invests the time into once middle game instead.

JEH wrote on 06/15/09 at 23:00:45:

True, that's another point against the move Kxa3 that I played. My opponent did know the 3rd rank defence though and play 1...Kxa3 2.Rd3+ Kxb4 3.Kc1. That of course does not work in case of 1...Rxa3 2.Rd3+ Kxb4, because 3.Kc1 just gives up the rook and 3.Rxa3 is a lost K+P vs. K ending.

I think basically all endings with the d- and e-pawn against the protected c-pawn are won except for the pawn ending. Eg with rooks it should be easy (relatively that is of course)

Bonsai, 

There have been quite a few threads with Rook and pawn endings.  However, I agree that there have been relatively few examples recently.  My guess is that they are either too concrete or too difficult.  I have read Korchnoi's book and still want to go back and really work on those Rook endings.   

The three games you present here are quite interesting, especially the second one. 

(The first one looks like something out of a book by Dvoretsky.) 

I remember quite clearly that there was a time (as recently as the 1980s) when grandmasters disagreed whether it was theoretically drawn and practically winning or if it was also theoretically winning.

Since the 1980s, the drawing plans have been worked out in tremendous detail, but it is still difficult to draw, especially without having spent quite a bit of time studying these in advance. 

Smyslov_Fan wrote on 06/14/09 at 21:23:49:



Those are two interesting plans that you suggest. I really did want to keep pieces on as a matter of principle, but during the game I looked at 1...Ne8 and saw 2.Ke4 Kf6 3.Ba2 and now my sad steed has only a8, c7, and e8 to hop to. That means Ba2-b3-a2-b3 is an even simpler draw than going into the pawn endgame with 1...Nd5+. I don't dare go ...Nd5 now, as I lose the pawn endgame after Bxd5 exd5+ and Kxd5.

1...Ng8, however...this is a good try to get White to err, and I missed it during the game. Black appears to be winning after 1.Ke4 Kf6 2.c6 Ne7 3.c7 Nc8 and now the difference is 4...Nd6 is coming. The white king runs up against a barrier, and the black monarch goes and collects the c-pawn. I like it! Unfortunately, if White keeps his head and plays 2.Bc2! Kd7 3.Be4 Ne7 Black must enter the K+P endgame in the game after 4.Bb7, or risk losing. However, it appears that this is what I should have tried. ...Nd5 will always be available, and potential ideas of Ne7-c6 or g6 could possibly have coaxed an error.

Also, I do not think the K+P endgame is as 'simple' as some are making it out to be. Sure, it may seem easy in the comfort of our homes, but put yourself in the heat of battle. White had 15 minutes left 3 moves before the position before 1...Nd5+ arose, and he had used up a good chunk of his remaining time on those three moves. Probably he had around 10 minutes left. We had both played a 3-4 hour long game earlier in the day, and this game had already gone 60 moves before the position was reached, so fatigue was definitely coming in to play. Also, two masters that had been watching the game both evaluated the K+P endgame as won for Black. And finally, if it was that easy... then my opponent surely would not have lost!

For the record, the final moves of the game were: 1...Nd5+ 2.Bxd5 exd5 3.Kd3 Kd7 4.Ke3 d4+ 5.Kd3 Kc7 6.Ke4 Kc6 7.Kd3 Kd5 8.Kd2 e4 9.Ke2 e3! (9...d3 tosses away all hope) 10.Kd3 Ke5 11.Kc2?? (I cannot recall how much time White had...possibly it was less than a minute. 11.Ke2 Ke4 12.c6 d3+ 13.Ke1! draws, but the other two retreats lose. I believe he said he only considered 13.Kd1) 11...Ke4 12.c6 d3+ 13.Kb3 e2 14.c7 e1=Q 15.c8=Q Qb1+ (using another method found in Dvoretsky's book) 16.Ka3 Qa1+ 17.Kb3 Qa4+ 18.Kc3 Qa3+ (18...Qc2 was mate, but I had already seen another win a few moves back) 19.Kd2 Qb2+ 20.Kd1 Qe2+ 21.Kc1 d2+ 0-1

I agree with Seth_Xoma, and I believe there is a big difference between memorizing exact positions and learning themes from positions. There are a few basic positions you should know in any case (the most simplle ones being K + p vs K), but apart from that, I believe the vital part of studying endgames is to learn the themes, which will then help you a lot in similar positions.

Seth_Xoma's position 1 is the kind of position where calculation is not that hard, but in time trouble, it would be very helpful to know the theory. If you have studied the theory, you would instantly know that 1.a5! is winning for White, while 1...a5! is a draw. I would like to add another example:



This postion is a real game which I watched. Both players were in severe time trouble and had little time to calculate. Black instantly played 1...Kc4?? 2.Kxh6 Kb3 3.Kg5 Kxa3 4.h6 Kb2 5.h7 a3 6.h8=Q+ and White won. If he had studied similar endgames, Black would have known that 1...Ke6 was a simple draw.

Position 2 from Seth_Xoma is a good example of a position where calculation is vital, but still, it helps a lot if you know what to look for. Again, I would like to add an example of my own:



This is from one of my own games. I heard after the game that several spectators had wondered why I (being Black) was taking such a long time, as just taking twice on g5 was a "simple draw" (It is a draw, but calling it "simple" sound to me like a neglection of the term "outside passed pawn"). However, having studied similar endgames, I knew that in pawn endgames, having passed pawns separated by four files makes the opponent's king unable to stop both pawns. Thus, after calculating and triple-checking everything, I played 1...fxg5+ 2.hxg5 h5! winning.

Calculation was necessary, but had I never seen positions like that before, I probably wouldn't even have considered such a continuation, giving White two beautiful connected passed pawns which even have come closer to promotion than my two separated passed pawns.

I also have a third example, where unfortunately I don't have the game available, but I remember it was a bishop + 2p vs knight + 3p. In that endgame, it was impossible to calculate all lines, and I still don't know whether the position was really drawn. However, knowledge of the following position helped me a lot:



It is perhaps easy to see this is a draw when you have the position on your board, but when you add more pieces, you wouldn't necessarily think about the fact that you could aim for this position. I suspect my opponent didn't know (or think about) this, as I very easily was able to give up my bishop and reach the position above.

Okay, all this was perhaps nothing else than a supplement to what Seth_Xoma has already said, but as you may have realized by know, I support his view.  

EDIT: Now the diagrams should be working.