Hi everyone.
I've noticed that I seem to lose every knight endgame I get into -- no matter who has the knight. This includes knight vs. 3 pawns endgames, knight vs knight endgames, knight vs bishop endgames, and in one humiliating loss in the halloween gambit tourney, an endgame where I was simply a full knight up in an otherwise straight king and pawn endgame ( Game 612357 ). (I might as well have simply saced the knight for a pawn and played it as a pawn up k+p endgame!)
So, obviously I don't know how to play knight and pawn endgames. Whenever I don't have the knight, my opponent's knight always ends up forking and winning numerous pawns in all lines. When I do have the knight, it always ends up sitting uselessly on the wrong side of the board, being coralled by pawns, while the enemy king gobbles.
So... err... help? Are there any general principles applicable to this type of endgame that I just don't know?
Having briefly looked at the game you gave, I get the impression that your problem is not with the knight, but with the king. In the game it looked like you were trying to do too much with the knight, at the expense of failing to activate your king. In the endgame, your king is an important fighting piece, one that MUST be brought into the frey if you want to win.
A lone knight, without being supported by active king, can't really protect isolated pawns effectively, against an active enemy king. So perhaps your problem is in your king play in endgames were you are a piece up - and the problem surfaces in favourable knight endgames, because a bishop may fare better in an endgame where the king is under-used, being able to protect from a distance.
So what I recommend: as soon as most of the pieces are off the board, and there's no risk of getting mated with pieces, start thinking about how to get your king into the center of action ASAP. I suspect that you'll find playing with knights a lot easier in the endgame if you've got a king to back them up.
-Jarno
I agree. You recognized that you could give up the pawns on the queenside (tho it wasn't necessary) as lng as you can pass a pawn on the kingside. But, your passed pawn was useless cause it was a sitting duck after that. Before advancing all your pawns, make your King better and push it to the middle. White has no other play in the meantime. An easy plan is to lock up the pawns on the queenside and then while yer king is on one side, your knight raids on the other.
Imagine two robbers getting in your house. One goes to your bedroom, the other to your cellar. You can stop one perhaps, but not both. You will lose material. (Jewlery, baseball cards?) Stopping one robber can't prevent one of them from stealing something.
Originally posted by paultopiaI think that you could have won on two (at least) occasions after move 32 by playing g5 sooner than you did. That would be moves 36 or 37.
thanks. I think I do have a little bit of a semi-conscious "hey, that piece can get to the scene of the action much faster... who needs to use the king?" thing going when I have a piece up endgame. I will work on that.
The idea is to threaten to promote first to force white's king to the middle/kingside instead of advancing his pawns, giving your king time to move up.
As an example: 37. ... g5 and now:
a) 38.Kxb5? g4! 39.h4 (if hxg fxg followed by Nf4 and white has to go back with the king giving black time to move up his king) Nd5 followed by Nxf4! and if white doesn't take the knight then the knight moves to d5 or d3 to help on the queenside while f4 remains a major threat
b) 38.h4 trying to close the kingside fails to g4 followed by Nd5 and Nxf4 (see above). If white takes the a-pawn he will come too late both to stop promotion and to make one himself
c) other moves lead to similar continuations, like 38.c4 bxc4 39.Kxc4 g4 etc...
I hope this makes sense. I didn't work out all the details but it looks convincing to me.
Can you explain why you resigned the game? This was still a draw. Black moves his king to the queenside to stop the pawns. For example with the pawns on a4 and b5 and the black king on a5. Black can not take but move the king between b6 and a5 or c5. White can try to move his king up to g4 but as soon as he plays h4 (without that white can't make progress) then black plays f3! and the pawns are exchanged and the knight can go back to help kill the pawns.
[i]Originally posted by Mephisto2Never mind.
Can you explain why you resigned the game? This was still a draw. Black moves his king to the queenside to stop the pawns. For example with the pawns on a4 and b5 and the black king on a5. Black can not take but move the king between b6 and a5 ...[text shortened]... s are exchanged and the knight can go back to help kill the pawns.[/b]
Originally posted by Mephisto2I resigned in anticipation of h4 destroying the win I was still looking for. I didn't really calculate to see if there was a draw: failing to win in a piece up endgame was disenheartening enough. I guess there was indeed a draw in your line. Paul's Plan for Chess Improvement part II: stop resigning draws...
Can you explain why you resigned the game? This was still a draw. Black moves his king to the queenside to stop the pawns. For example with the pawns on a4 and b5 and the black king on a5. Black can not take but move the king between b6 and a5 or c5. White can try to move his king up to g4 but as soon as he plays h4 (without that white can't make progress) t ...[text shortened]... n black plays f3! and the pawns are exchanged and the knight can go back to help kill the pawns.[/b]