1 edit
Originally posted by Fat Ladyand FL brings up the good point here. Kf6?
Careful. Black could have played 6. ... Kh7 and White is scuppered. Here's how that one should have played out:
[pgn]
[Result "1-0"]
[FEN "6k1/8/8/8/8/8/8/5RK1 w - - 0 1"]
[SetUp "1"]
{--------------
. . . . . . k .
. . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . .
. . . . . R K .
white to play ...[text shortened]...
Kh8 8. Kf7 Kh7 9. Rh1#
{White mates} 1-0
[/pgn]
(A different mate. Just for fun)
And now white has left the plane of opposition. Black responds Kh7 and gains it himself.
What are the planes of opposition you ask? I'm glad you did 🙂
Plane 1 (the plane which was left)
Plane 2 (The plane which white entered incorrectly)
Plane 3
Plane 4
As can easily be seen... Each two plains of the same color intersect each other, and
differ only on the sides of the board. As Fat Lady pointed out... When both kings
are not in the same plane, the opposition is exchanged.
🙂
Originally posted by Fat LadyI guess White's idea is that he plays Kb1 or Kc1 until Black takes the pawn, and only then does he play Kc2.
This is my favourite opposition puzzle.
[fen]8/8/8/2p5/1kP5/8/1K6/8 w - - 0 1[/fen]
White to play is trying to draw. If you give this to even quite experienced club players, they'll play Kc2 without any thought.
2 edits
I've never heard of "the planes of opposition" before and I only wish I had stayed ignorant of the concept for a few more years yet.
How does the Kh1 problem fit in with these planes? I always thought it was just a case of Black winning by gaining a tempo when he moves a pawn with check if White plays the obvious Kf1. Just bad luck and not really a general rule.
4 edits
Originally posted by Fat LadyOff the top of my head, I believe its in Capablanca's Chess Fundamentals under his
I've never heard of "the planes of opposition" before and I only wish I had stayed ignorant of the concept for a few more years yet.
How does the Kh1 problem fit in with these planes? I always thought it was just a case of Black winning by gaining a tempo when he moves a pawn with check if White plays the obvious Kf1. Just bad luck and not really a gener -}
1. Kf1 Kd2 2. Kf2 g4 3. fxg4 e4 4. g5 e3+ 5. Kf3 e2 6. g6 e1=Q 7. g7 Qg1
*
[/pgn]
"Opposition" chapter... if not that book... I can go searching for its introduction, if you
are curious for the original author.
both f1 and h1 are on the same plane as e1, a2 however is not. Its only valuable for
calculating "distant opposition" ... just the same as the technique where you count the
squares in between kings... the planes just highlight the separation of planes on the
edge of the board.
ADD: The Kh1 puzzle was posted by me on a previous page of this thread.
I just answered it. It wasn't chosen to exemplify anything. The better example was
the Kf6 maneuver (incorrect) where Kh7 is possible. Better would have been Kh6 and
white remains on the same plane of opposition, and still has control. While f6, is on
another plane, and when Kh7, white cannot play any correct square. He is on
the wrong plane.
1 edit
Originally posted by Nowakowskisurprisingly there is no mention of it in Casablancas Chess Fundamentals under the section 'opposition', for there are three examples given under the section, example 26 through to example 28 which mention only close frontal opposition, close diagonal opposition or so called close lateral or actual opposition. You must have read it some other place.
Off the top of my head, I believe its in Capablanca's Chess Fundamentals under his
"Opposition" chapter... if not that book... I can go searching for its introduction, if you
are curious for the original author.
both f1 and h1 are on the same plane as e1, a2 however is not. Its only valuable for
calculating "distant opposition" ... just the same as her plane, and when Kh7, white cannot play any correct square. He is on
the wrong plane.
Originally posted by robbie carrobieOK, I'll go searching. 🙂
surprisingly there is no mention of it in Casablancas Chess Fundamentals under the section 'opposition', for there are three examples given under the section, example 26 through to example 28 which mention only close frontal opposition, close diagonal opposition or so called close lateral or actual opposition. You must have read it some other place.
I think that puzzle is from Capablanca's at least... or is my memory that out of place?
(the Kh1 puzzle)
I was thinking he mentioned it alongside a game of his with pawns on each side, and the
kings are centrally placed (but distant from one another) and either king to move gains
the opposition. But that could be another book also.
I'll go fetch.
-GIN
Originally posted by Fat LadyThere is a theory about 'corresponding squares' or 'sister squares'. That are squares, given a king and pawns endgame position, where mutual zugzwang exists. In this example, h1 and d1, h2 and d2, e2 and d2, g1 and e1 etc... are such squares couples. After 1.Kh1 white is in zugzwang. The concept is a generalisation of the normal opposition, taking account of the pawns on the board.
I've never heard of "the planes of opposition" before and I only wish I had stayed ignorant of the concept for a few more years yet.
How does the Kh1 problem fit in with these planes? I always thought it was just a case of Black winning by gaining a tempo when he moves a pawn with check if White plays the obvious Kf1. Just bad luck and not really a gener ...[text shortened]... -}
1. Kf1 Kd2 2. Kf2 g4 3. fxg4 e4 4. g5 e3+ 5. Kf3 e2 6. g6 e1=Q 7. g7 Qg1
*
[/pgn]
Originally posted by Nowakowskiyes the puzzle is, its example 28. 🙂
OK, I'll go searching. 🙂
I think that puzzle is from Capablanca's at least... or is my memory that out of place?
(the Kh1 puzzle)
I was thinking he mentioned it alongside a game of his with pawns on each side, and the
kings are centrally placed (but distant from one another) and either king to move gains
the opposition. But that could be another book also.
I'll go fetch.
-GIN
1 edit
Originally posted by Fat LadyI apologize, the title was completely incorrect! Whats worse, is I didn't explain it nearly
I've never heard of "the planes of opposition" before and I only wish I had stayed ignorant of the concept for a few more years yet.
How does the Kh1 problem fit in with these planes? I always thought it was just a case of Black winning by gaining a tempo when he moves a pawn with check if White plays the obvious Kf1. Just bad luck and not really a gener -}
1. Kf1 Kd2 2. Kf2 g4 3. fxg4 e4 4. g5 e3+ 5. Kf3 e2 6. g6 e1=Q 7. g7 Qg1
*
[/pgn]
as well as the original author 😳
The book to which my memory was grabbing for was actually:
A Guide to Chess Endings by Max Euwe
Where Max covers opposition, right from the beginning of the book.
Apologize for not having the title correct the first time.
And give me just a few moments, and I'll post more correctly what the planes should
look like, when presented correctly. I was off 🙁
-GIN
Originally posted by greenpawn34I was thinking about the game where you were white. When we PM'ed on it, I was thinking of my better minor pieces when I referred to "reasonable drawing chances", but a pawn is still a pawn!
Hi Paul.
Not to sure, which game was I better. Game 7141662 is heading down theory
that I cannot as Black avoid and White ends up with a slight pull.
and Game 7141641 I am a pawn up but you have the better minor pieces
and King.
I declined a chance to stir things up there, should have played 17.Rxf6 and if 17...Ng4 18.e5.
But t ...[text shortened]... wee trap 19.Raf1 Bf5!
I prefer Black in that game, OTB I may have declined the draw as Black.
In the other game, I kept expecting some "whack me upside the head" novelty every move, so when you offered the draw, I ran with it! That is the first time I have actually reached the Falkbeer Countergambit all the way from Bird's Opening!
Paul