Please turn on javascript in your browser to play chess.
Only Chess Forum

Only Chess Forum

  1. Subscriber 64squaresofpain
    The drunk knight
    26 Mar '14 12:34
    In light of a recent discussion on WanderingKing's thread "brain fart"
    here is the game I referred to (now completed)

    I play white



    I played on with the belief that I could win, but realised just how drawish this kind of ending is.

    My question is:
    What could I have done differently in the game to avoid this outcome?
    And are there any tips in general for this type of endgame?

    Thanks... and congrats to Adam Hallsworth for winning the tournament
  2. Subscriber moonbus
    Uber-Nerd
    26 Mar '14 20:02
  3. Subscriber Ragwort
    Ex Duris Gloria
    26 Mar '14 20:04
    Originally posted by 64squaresofpain



    My question is:
    What could I have done differently in the game to avoid this outcome?
    And are there any tips in general for this type of endgame?

    They always say that having an opposite bishop gives you an extra attacking piece...


  4. Subscriber moonbus
    Uber-Nerd
    26 Mar '14 20:52
    Originally posted by Ragwort
    looks quite promising at first glance
    Nice tactical shot.

    OP asked for endgame advice, so I started looking only after the rooks were off.
  5. Subscriber Ragwort
    Ex Duris Gloria
    26 Mar '14 21:23 / 1 edit
    Originally posted by moonbus
    Nice tactical shot.

    OP asked for endgame advice, so I started looking only after the rooks were off.
    I only noticed it because Nb8 looks suspicious and "everything else" is on a white square. I suppose one of the points is that decisions made at move 10 and 18 where the Bishops were exchanged for knights have consequences throughout the rest of the game. The positive (middle game) aspects NEED to be exploited before acquiescing to the negative and drawish (endgame) aspects. Aware of it or not that is the strategic decision being made - the landscape being created. If you make the exchange as a result of a strategical choice then you are in control and are probably more aware of what you should be doing. If the strategy is forced on you by what's left on the board after the exchanges then you are probably not in control, and are more likely to miss what is required. I should know - it happens to me all the time!!

    Edit: No argument with your points by the way - g4 does seem a howler.
  6. Subscriber moonbus
    Uber-Nerd
    26 Mar '14 22:24
    "decisions made at move 10 and 18 where the Bishops were exchanged for knights have consequences throughout the rest of the game. The positive (middle game) aspects NEED to be exploited before acquiescing to the negative and drawish (endgame) aspects. Aware of it or not that is the strategic decision being made - the landscape being created. If you make the exchange as a result of a strategical choice then you are in control and are probably more aware of what you should be doing. If the strategy is forced on you by what's left on the board after the exchanges then you are probably not in control, and are more likely to miss what is required."

    Good analysis.

    At move 19, White had a tactical shot to win a pawn, hence (I suppose) the justification for the minor piece exchange in the center at move 18. Thing is, a one-pawn advantage is seldom sufficient to win an opp.colour B endgame. That said, Karpov had some notable successes with op.colour B endgames. One learns these things only by experience.
  7. Subscriber Ragwort
    Ex Duris Gloria
    26 Mar '14 22:58
    Originally posted by Ragwort
    looks quite promising at first glance
    On second thoughts my line is sunk by Qxb5 (doh)

    I still think White should keep the Queens on and attack with the "extra piece". Maybe Qb3 aiming at f7 works. Then try and centralize the rooks and push the passed d pawn.
  8. Subscriber moonbus
    Uber-Nerd
    27 Mar '14 08:51
    To 64sq.: the standard reference work is Reuben Fine's Basic Chess Endings. It is a thorough and exhaustive treatment, organized as follows: K + P vs K, K + Ps vs K, K + Ps vs K + P, K + Ps vs K + Ps; then all variations of K + P and pieces vs K etc. etc. Including K + Ps with op.colour Bs. Only an Asperger would read it cover-to-cover. It belongs on the shelf of every chess player who wants to improve beyond 1500+. Use it to:

    a) analyze OTB games post mortem;
    b) analyze running correspondence games;
    c) and as Ragwort said, use it BEFORE you get to the endgame: knowing when a P+ advantage is a sure win and when it isn't should direct your strategic thinking through the middle game.
  9. Subscriber 64squaresofpain
    The drunk knight
    27 Mar '14 19:36
    Thanks guys, I see now 34. g4 was a clanger...
    not sure what I was thinking, or why I missed the simple f4

    Ya live n learn
  10. Subscriber moonbus
    Uber-Nerd
    28 Mar '14 05:41
    Originally posted by 64squaresofpain
    Thanks guys, I see now 34. g4 was a clanger...
    not sure what I was thinking, or why I missed the simple f4

    Ya live n learn
    You had a 4-pawn to 2-pawn majority on the k-side. It was crucial to get that pawn mass rolling together; the far-advanced e-pawn alone just wasn't strong enough. Once you've seen it, you won't forget it. We all make mistakes.