12 Feb '10 19:26>1 edit
White to play and win
edit: 2 pawns moved from g - to f-file
edit: 2 pawns moved from g - to f-file
Originally posted by Mephisto2White has two potential entry points at b5 and h5. Black must be able to answer Kc4 with Kb6 and Kh4 with Kg6 to hold. If White ever gets more than one file ahead in the race to the Kingside, he will win.
White to play and win
[fen]8/k7/3p4/p2P1p2/P2P1P2/8/8/K7 w - - 0 1[/fen]
edit: 2 pawns moved from g - to f-file
Originally posted by SwissGambitBlack can put up more resistance, but as long as white follows the map, there is no chance for him:
White has two potential entry points at b5 and h5. Black must be able to answer Kc4 with Kb6 and Kh4 with Kg6 to hold. If White ever gets more than one file ahead in the race to the Kingside, he will win.
So, making a corresponding squares map:
If white plays Kc4, black must play Kb6
But d3 is one move away from c4, so black must answer Kd3 with Kc7 ...[text shortened]... he other side.
I don't think I could calculate this OTB. Was hard enough to do on paper.
Originally posted by Mephisto2Very interesting. I'm not sure i'm aware of the theory of corresponding squares. Can you explain? I'm always up for anything that could improve my endgame play.
Not only are you correct, but it is nicely explained too 🙂.
One minor point: both g5 and h5 are entry points, but it doesn't change the approach path to either.
Without the 'sister squares' theory, how difficult an endgame that must have been for Lasker in 1901 (against Reichhelm)!
As your examples show, in this case, black tries to follow white ...[text shortened]... ed 'heterodox opposition'. After all, this is just a generalisation of opposition theory.
Originally posted by Mephisto2Thanks for the info but that is as clear as mud!! maybe it's just me. The square numbering in the programming article is like a mensa puzzle. No way i can make sense of that.
Here is one article with another example and an indication of how it can be used for programming chess:
https://chessprogramming.wikispaces.com/Corresponding+Squares
edit. and another one by the endgame writer Karsten Muller:
http://www.chesscafe.com/text/mueller38.pdf
Originally posted by TalismanDon't shoot at the pianist, lol. As Einstein said: we must try to keep explanations as simple as possible, but not more simple ...
Thanks for the info but that is as clear as mud!! maybe it's just me. The square numbering in the programming article is like a mensa puzzle. No way i can make sense of that.
I have 3 endgame books
1. Winning chess Endings, Seirewan
2. GM secret endings, Soltis
3. Essential chess endings, Howell
None of them mention this topic. I don't really want to ...[text shortened]... y book just to have a look at this confusing subject so i guess i'll have to remain ignorant!
Originally posted by TalismanI think it's better to start by thinking in terms of squares first.
Thanks for the info but that is as clear as mud!! maybe it's just me. The square numbering in the programming article is like a mensa puzzle. No way i can make sense of that.
I have 3 endgame books
1. Winning chess Endings, Seirewan
2. GM secret endings, Soltis
3. Essential chess endings, Howell
None of them mention this topic. I don't really want to ...[text shortened]... y book just to have a look at this confusing subject so i guess i'll have to remain ignorant!
Originally posted by SwissGambitYes i can see that black needs to keep the opposition in order to keep the white king out. However i've always been a little unsure about working out the distant opposition.
I think it's better to start by thinking in terms of squares first.
Maybe we should try going through the example of this thread a bit more slowly. Looking at the solution, do you see why Black must answer Kc4 with Kb6, and Kd3 with Kc7?
Originally posted by SwissGambitBut with black to move in the starting position it's apparently a draw. My head is hurting!
Black can put up more resistance, but as long as white follows the map, there is no chance for him:
[pgn]
[FEN "8/k7/3p4/p2P1p2/P2P1P2/8/8/K7 w - - 0 1"]
1. Kb1 Ka8 2. Kb2 Kb8 3. Kc2 Kc8 4. Kd2 Kd8 5. Kc3 Kc7 6. Kd3
[/pgn]
Originally posted by Mephisto2I've just set this up on a board and gone through your explanantion which is very good. I now understand the theory behind it but is there a trick to working out the sister squares in short time. Working all that out Over the Board would be impossible, at least for me.
edit: double posting