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
Originally posted by moonbusI 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!!
Nice tactical shot.
OP asked for endgame advice, so I started looking only after the rooks were off.
Edit: No argument with your points by the way - g4 does seem a howler.
"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.
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.
Originally posted by 64squaresofpainYou 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.
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