Split (1)

train · 25k rows

text stringlengths 13 991
In Ivanov–Dolmatov, Novosibirsk 1976 (left-most diagram), Black, an down in the endgame, seemingly had a hopeless position. In desperation, he tried 1...e3! White replied 2.Rxb4?? Amatzia Avni wrote, "Amazingly, this greedy collecting of further material gains throws away the win. After 2.fxe3 Black would probably resign." There followed 2...e2 3.Re4 Bxf5 4.gxf5 h4!! (right-most diagram). Despite White's extra rook, the position is drawn: his rook must stay on the e-file to stop Black's pawn from queening, while his king is trapped in the corner. 5.Rg4+ can be met by 5...Kf7 (not 5...Kh6?? 6.Rxh4+) 6.Re4 and now 6...h3, or any king move, holds the draw.
"Zugzwang", though most often used by the superior side, is sometimes available as a swindling technique to the inferior side. Chigorin–Schlechter above is one such instance.
In the position at left, the natural 1...Kb4 would be a fatal blunder, turning a win into a loss after 2.Kd5!, reaching the noted "trébuchet" position (diagram at right), where whoever is on move loses, a situation described as "full-point mutual zugzwang." Instead, 1...Kb3! 2.Kd5 Kb4 wins.
In the movie Tower Heist, Arthur Shaw (played by Alan Alda) mentions "the Marshall Swindle" in a scene where Shaw is playing chess alone, and the main character of Kovaks (played by Ben Stiller) and others are asking where their money is. Shaw specifically mentions the 1912 Master's Tournament of Levitsky versus Marshall and the Swindle in that game, which he describes as "the greatest move in the history of chess". This move is later spoken by Kovaks as Shaw is arrested for fraud at the end of the film.
The exchange in chess refers to a situation in which one player exchanges a (i.e. a bishop or knight) for a rook. The side which wins the rook is said to have "won the exchange", while the other player has "lost the exchange", since the rook is usually more valuable. Alternatively, the side that has won the rook is "up the exchange", and the other player is "down the exchange". The opposing captures often happen on consecutive moves, although this is not strictly necessary. It is generally detrimental to lose the exchange, although occasionally one may find reason to purposely do so; the result is an "exchange sacrifice" (see below). The "minor exchange" is an uncommon term for the exchange of a bishop and knight.
"The exchange" differs from the more general "exchange" or "an exchange", which refers to the loss and subsequent gain of arbitrary pieces, for example to "exchange queens" would mean that each side's queen is .
In the middlegame, the advantage of an exchange is usually enough to win the game if the side with the rook has one or more pawns. In an endgame without pawns, the advantage of the exchange is normally not enough to win (see pawnless chess endgame). The most common exceptions when there are no pawns are (1) a rook versus a bishop in which the defending king is trapped in a corner of the same color as his bishop, (2) a knight separated from its king that may be cornered and lost, and (3) the king and knight are poorly placed .
In the endgame of a rook and a pawn versus a knight and a pawn, if the pawns are passed the rook is much stronger and should win. If the pawns are not passed, the side with knight has good drawing chances if its pieces are well-placed .
In the endgame of a rook and a pawn versus a bishop and pawn, If the pawns are on the same file, the bishop has good chances to draw if the pawns are blocked and the opposing pawn is on a square the bishop can attack; otherwise the rook usually wins. If the pawns are passed the rook normally wins. If the pawns are not passed and are on adjacent files, it is difficult to assess but the bishop may be able to draw .
In an endgame with more pawns on the board (i.e. a rook and pawns versus a minor piece with the same number of pawns) the rook usually wins . This position is typical. The superior side should remember these things:
If the minor piece has an extra pawn (i.e. one pawn for the exchange), the rook should win, but with difficulty. If the minor piece has two extra pawns, the endgame should be a draw .
In this 2004 game between Ivan Sokolov and World Champion Vladimir Kramnik, White gave up the exchange for a pawn in order to create two strong connected passed pawns. The game continued:
and White won on move 41 .
Tigran Petrosian, the World Champion from 1963–1969, was well known for his especially creative use of this device. He once responded (only half jokingly), when asked what was his favourite piece, as saying "The rook, because I can sacrifice it for minor pieces!" In the game Reshevsky versus Petrosian at the 1953 Candidates Tournament in Zurich, he sacrificed the exchange on move 25, only for his opponent to sacrifice it in return on move 30. This game is perhaps the most famous and most frequently taught example of the exchange sacrifice.
There are no open in this position for the rooks to exploit. Black sacrificed the exchange with
With the rook not on e7, the black knight will be able to get to a strong outpost on d5. From there the knight will be attacking the pawn on c3, and if the white bishop on b2 does not move to d2, it will be of little use. In addition, it will be practically impossible to break Black's defense on the white squares. The next few moves were:
The game was drawn on move 41 .
In the tenth game from the 1966 World Chess Championship between defending champion Tigran Petrosian and challenger Boris Spassky contained two exchange sacrifices by White. Black had just moved
White had no choice: 21.Rf2 Rxf4 22.Rxf4 Qg5+, etc. The game continued:
Black is helpless, despite being two exchanges ahead. White won back an exchange on move 29. On move 30 White forced the win of the other rook and the exchange of queens. Black resigned because the position was a winning endgame for White (two knights and five pawns versus one knight and four pawns) . Petrosian won the match by one game to retain his title.
In a 1994 game between World Champion Garry Kasparov and Alexei Shirov, White sacrificed a pure exchange (rook for a bishop) with the move 17. Rxb7!!. As compensation for the sacrifice, Black became weak on the white squares, which were dominated by White's bishop. The exchange sacrifice also deprived Black of the and his remaining bishop was a . During the game, many spectating grandmasters were sceptical whether White's compensation was enough. Black returned the exchange on move 28, making the equal, but White had a strong initiative. Black missed a better 28th move after which White could have forced a draw, but would have had no clear advantage. White won the game on move 38 .
The minor exchange refers to the capture of the opponent's bishop for the player's knight (or, more recently, the stronger for the weaker) . Bobby Fischer used the term , but it is rarely used.
In most chess positions, a bishop is worth slightly more than a knight because of its longer range of movement. As a chess game progresses, pawns tend to get traded, removing support points from the knight and opening up lines for the bishop. This generally leads to the bishop's advantage increasing over time. In general, bishops have relatively higher value in an and knights have relatively higher value in a .
Traditional chess theory espoused by masters such as Wilhelm Steinitz and Siegbert Tarrasch puts more value on the bishop than the knight. In contrast, the hypermodern school favored the knight over the bishop. Modern theory is that it depends on the position, but that there are more positions where the bishop is better than where the knight is better .
Occasions when a knight can be worth more than a bishop are frequent, so this exchange is not necessarily made at every opportunity to do so.
In chess, a backward pawn is a pawn that is behind all pawns of the same color on the adjacent and cannot be safely advanced. In the diagram, the black pawn on the c6-square is backward.
Backward pawns are usually a positional disadvantage because they are unable to be defended by pawns. Also, the opponent can place a piece, usually a knight, on the in front of the pawn without any risk of a pawn driving it away. The backward pawn also prevents its owner's rooks and queen on the same file from attacking the piece placed on the hole.
If the backward pawn is on a half-open file, as in this case, the disadvantage is even greater, as the pawn can be attacked more easily by an opponent's rook or queen on the c-file. Pieces can become weak when they are devoted to protecting a backward pawn, since their obligation to defend the pawn keeps them from being deployed for other uses.
Modern opening theory features several openings in which one of the players deliberately incurs a backward pawn in exchange for some other advantage such as initiative or better . An excellent example is the Sveshnikov Variation of the Sicilian Defence.
After the moves 1. e4 c5 2. Nf3 Nc6 3. d4 cxd4 4. Nxd4 Nf6 (or 4...e5 5.Nb5 d6 – the Kalashnikov Variation) 5. Nc3 e5!? 6. Ndb5 d6 (see diagram), Black has a backward pawn on d6, but White now has to endure a displacement of his knights and an undermining of his after 7. Bg5 a6 8. Na3 b5 9. Bxf6 gxf6 10. Nd5 (dodging the threatened pawn-fork of the knights) 10... f5! (or 10...Bg7 11.c3 [facilitating the knight on a3 to return to the center via Na3–c2–e3] 11...f5!) 11. c3 Bg7, and so on.
In chess, an isolated pawn is a pawn that has no friendly pawn on an adjacent . Isolated pawns are usually a weakness because they cannot be protected by other pawns. The square in front of the pawn may become a good outpost or otherwise a good square for the opponent to anchor pieces. Isolated pawns most often become weaker in the endgame, as there are fewer pieces available to protect the pawn.
Isolated pawns can, however, provide improved development and associated opportunities for that offset or even outweigh their weaknesses. The files adjacent to the isolated pawn are either open or half-open, providing two lanes of attack for the rooks and the queen. The absence of pawns adjacent to the isolated pawn may also mobilize the player's knights and bishops.
An isolated pawn on the d-file is called an isolated queen pawn or simply an isolani. In addition to the open or half-open c- and e-files, the isolated queen pawn can provide a good outpost on the c- and e-file squares diagonally forward of the pawn, which are especially favorable for the player's knights. The isolated queen pawn position favors a attack, freeing both the light and dark-squared bishops due to the absence of friendly pawns on the c- and e-files. Isolated queen pawns suffer, however, from the same weaknesses as other isolated pawns.
Many "textbook" openings lead to isolated pawns, such as the French Defence, Nimzo-Indian Defence, Caro–Kann and Queen's Gambit.
In the endgame, isolated pawns are a weakness in pawn structure because they cannot be defended by other pawns as with connected pawns. In this diagram, the white pawn on the e4-square and the black pawn on a7 are isolated.
Isolated pawns are weak for two reasons. First, the pieces attacking them usually have more flexibility than those defending them. In other words, the attacking pieces enjoy greater freedom to make other threats (win pieces, checkmate, etc.), while the defending pieces are restricted to the defense of the pawn. This is because a piece that is attacking a pawn can give up the attack to do something else, whereas the defending piece must stay rooted to the spot until the attacking piece has moved. The defending piece is thus said to be "tied down" to the pawn.
The second reason is that the square immediately in front of the isolated pawn is weak, since it is immune to attack by a pawn (often providing an excellent outpost for a knight), and the enemy piece located in this square cannot be attacked by rooks because the isolated pawn blocks the file it is on. Thus an isolated pawn provides a typical example of what Wilhelm Steinitz called "weak squares".
An isolated queen pawn (IQP), called an "isolani", is often a special case. An isolated queen pawn is one on the queen's (d-file). The weakness of such a pawn's isolation arises from two factors associated with the absence of both neighboring pawns:
The presence of open or half-open king (e-) and queen's bishop (c-) files, as well as the outposts (for White) at e5 and c5, enable the player with the IQP favourable attacking chances in the middlegame, however. Once the game reaches the endgame, the pawn's isolation becomes more of a weakness than a strength. Therefore, the player with the IQP must take advantage of the temporary strength before an endgame is reached. proposed that with four each, an IQP is an advantage; with three minor pieces each, it is about even; and with two or fewer minor pieces each, it is a disadvantage. Sacrifice of the pawn by White and of the pawn by Black are common themes.
The diagram shows some of the optimum piece placements for both sides in an IQP position.
Making use of this arrangement of pieces White may plan to either advance thematically with d4–d5 opening the position and dissolving the IQP, or use the greater activity of his pieces to launch an attack probably making use of the e5-square for a knight and possibly lifting a rook to the kingside. Typically there may also be a sacrifice on e6 or f7. It is important that White try to use the IQP to support an attack or dissolve it before the endgame as it would then become weak. The advance d4–d5 or a tactic forcing Black to capture a piece on e5 and then recapturing with the d4-pawn would be typical ways of achieving this.
The exchange of a rook for bishop or knight is an "uneven exchange" because a rook is generally more valuable than a bishop or knight. A "minor exchange" is a less commonly used term which refers to the exchange of a bishop for a knight.
A "forced exchange" is an exchange in a position where one of the players is required to initiate or undergo an exchange, either because no alternative play is allowed by chess rules or because the consequence of not making the exchange would be unacceptably detrimental to that player's game. Many exchanges can be offered, but they are not forced. In such cases, the player presented with the possibility of an exchange may decide to make the initial capture, may decline making the initial capture, or may even move to avoid the exchange. The player can weigh the advantages and disadvantages of each move to decide. For a prospective uneven exchange, the values of the pieces are often the deciding factor.
Chess positions are often set up where a player's piece on a certain square is defended by one or more of his other pieces. This typically means that if an opponent's piece captures the defended piece, the capturing piece would be subject to recapture by a defending piece ("defender"). An opponent's piece in a position to capture a given piece could be considered an attacking piece ("attacker"). Positions could develop where a player's piece on a square has one or more attackers and one or more defenders. This is a common way in which exchanges could occur, although there are other ways also.
In such positions, a player with the attacking piece(s) may decide whether it is worthwhile for him to initiate a capture likely to result in recapture, likely decided by the value of the pieces to be taken in the ensuing exchange. Pinned pieces often cannot be counted on being attackers or defenders.
In chess, a sacrifice is the deliberate giving up of a piece by a player, allowing or forcing an opponent to capture the piece or exchange it for a lower value piece.
In a desperado situation, a trapped piece which would inevitably be lost can sometimes be exchanged for another piece, even if it has lower value, in order to minimize net material loss for the player having the inevitably lost piece.
Exchanges of pieces are commonly involved in chess tactics and strategy.
Exchanges are often made to try to improve a position from a strategic point of view. Since positional advantages are often smaller than those due to difference in material value, exchanges to gain a positional advantage are commonly even exchanges in terms of material.
If a player gains material superiority in a game, a strategy can involve making even exchanges to eliminate other pieces for to make the superiority more decisive. The opponent with less material may try to avoid exchanges, but then the player with more material may try to force exchanges anyway.
Strong players commonly play a materially even game with each other, often clearing out their pieces with even exchanges to transition from middlegame to the endgame.
An exchange variation is a type of opening in which there is an early, voluntary exchange of pawns and/or other pieces.
An open file in chess is a with no pawns of either color on it. In the diagram, the e-file is an open file. An open file can provide a line of attack for a rook or queen. Having rooks or queens on open files or half-open files is considered advantageous, as it allows a player to attack more easily, since a rook or queen can move down the file to penetrate the opponent's position.
A common strategic objective for a rook or queen on an open file is to reach its seventh or eighth (the opponent's second or first rank). Controlling the seventh rank is generally worth at least a pawn, as it threatens all the opponent's yet-unmoved pawns to some degree. Controlling the eighth rank is likely to force the opposing king into a more exposed position and puts pressure on any remaining pieces, or if the rank is already clear, allows unobstructed movement behind the enemy forces. Aron Nimzowitsch first recognized the power of a on an open file, writing in his famous book "My System" that the main objective of a rook or queen on an open file is "the eventual occupation of the 7th or 8th rank".
Many games are decided based on this strategy. In the game Anand–Ivanchuk, Amber 2001, Anand sacrificed a pawn to open the d-file. White then used the open file to deploy his rooks to the seventh and eighth ranks and win the game, by exploiting the weakness of Black's a-pawn. White's dominance on the d-file allowed him to maneuver his rooks to aggressive posts deep within Black's defense.
In chess, the fortress is an endgame drawing technique in which the side behind in sets up a zone of protection that the opponent cannot penetrate. This might involve keeping the enemy king out of one's position, or a zone the enemy cannot force one out of (e.g. see the opposite-colored bishops example). An elementary fortress is a theoretically drawn (i.e. a ) position with reduced material in which a passive defense will maintain the draw.
Fortresses pose a problem for computer chess: computers fail to recognize fortress-type positions and are unable to achieve the win against them despite claiming a winning advantage .
Perhaps the most common type of fortress, often seen in endgames with only a few pieces on the board, is where the defending king is able to take refuge in a corner of the board and cannot be chased away or checkmated by the superior side. These two diagrams furnish two classic examples. In both cases, Black simply shuffles his king between a8 and the available square adjacent to a8 (a7, b7, or b8, depending on the position of the white king and pawn). White has no way to dislodge Black's king, and can do no better than a draw by stalemate or some other means.
Note that the bishop and wrong rook pawn ending (i.e. where the pawn is a rook pawn whose promotion square is the color opposite to that of the bishop) in the diagram is a draw even if the pawn is on the seventh rank or further back on the a-. Heading for a bishop and wrong rook pawn ending is a fairly common drawing resource available to the inferior side .
The knight and rook pawn position in the diagram, however, is a draw only if White's pawn is already on the seventh rank, making this drawing resource available to the defender much less frequently. White wins if the pawn is not yet on the seventh rank and is protected by the knight from behind. With the pawn on the seventh rank, Black has a stalemate defense with his king in the corner .
A fortress is often achieved by a sacrifice, such as of a piece for a pawn. In the game between Grigory Serper and Hikaru Nakamura, in the 2004 U.S. Chess Championship, White would lose after 1.Nd1 Kc4 or 1.Nh1 Be5 or 1.Ng4 Bg7. Instead he played
Heading for h1. After another 10 moves the position in the following diagram was reached:
Black has no way of forcing White's king away from the corner, so he played
and after 13.h4 gxh4 the game was drawn by stalemate.
The back-rank defense in some rook and pawn versus rook endgames is another type of fortress in a corner (see diagram). The defender perches his king on the pawn's queening square, and keeps his rook on the back rank (on the "long side" of the king, not, e.g., on h8 in the diagram position) to guard against horizontal checks. If 1.Rg7+ in the diagram position, Black heads into the corner with 1...Kh8! Note that this defense works "only" against rook pawns and knight pawns .
In the ending of a rook versus a bishop, the defender can form a fortress in the "safe" corner—the corner that is not of the color on which the bishop resides (see diagram). White must release the potential stalemate, but he cannot improve his position .
In this position from de la Villa, White draws if his king does not leave the corner. It is also a draw if the bishop is on the other color, so it is not a case of the wrong bishop .
In the diagram, Black draws by moving his rook back and forth between the d6- and f6-squares, or moves his king when checked, staying behind the rook and next to the pawn. This fortress works when all of these conditions are met:
The white king is not able to cross the rank of the black rook and the white queen is unable to do anything useful.
Positions such as these (when the defending rook and king are near the pawn and the opposing king cannot attack from behind) are drawn when (see diagram):
In this position, with Black to move, Black can reach a drawing fortress.
and now 3...Ka3 and several other moves reach the fortress. In the actual game, Black made the weak move 3...Rd3? and lost .
In this 1959 game between Whitaker and Ferriz, White sacrificed a rook for a knight in order to exchange a pair of pawns and reach this position, and announced that it was a draw because (1) the queen cannot mate alone, and (2) the black king and pawn cannot approach to help . However, endgame tablebase analysis shows Black to have a forced win in 19 moves starting with 50... Qc7+ (the only winning move), taking advantage of the fact that the rook is currently unprotected – again illustrating how tablebases are refining traditional endgame theory.
From the diagram, in Salov vs. Korchnoi, Wijk aan Zee 1997, White was able to hold a draw with a rook versus a queen, even with the sides having an equal number of pawns. He kept his rook on the fifth rank blocking in Black's king, and was careful not to lose his rook to a fork or allow a queen sacrifice for the rook in circumstances where that would win for Black. The players agreed to a draw after:
In endings with bishops of opposite colors (i.e. where one player has a bishop that moves on light squares, while the other player's bishop moves on dark squares), it is often possible to establish a fortress, and thus hold a draw, when one player is one, two, or occasionally even three pawns behind. A typical example is seen in the diagram. White, although three pawns behind, has established a drawing fortress, since Black has no way to contest White's stranglehold over the light squares. White simply keeps his bishop on the h3–c8 diagonal .
In an endgame with opposite-colored bishops, positional factors may be more important than material. In this position, Black sacrifices a pawn (leaving him three pawns down) to reach a fortress.
After 4...Be2 5.Kh6 Bd1 6.h5 Black just waits by playing 6...Be2 .
Here are drawing fortresses with two versus a queen . Usually the defending side will not be able to get to one of these positions.
The bishop and knight fortress is another type of fortress in a corner. If necessary, the king can move to one of the squares adjacent to the corner, and the bishop can retreat to the corner. This gives the inferior side enough tempo moves to avoid zugzwang. For example:
In the two bishop versus queen ending, the queen wins if the Lolli position is not reached, but some of them take up to seventy-one moves to either checkmate or win a bishop, so the fifty-move rule comes into play. From the diagram:
and White cannot prevent ... Bb6, which gets back to the Lolli position .
In the two knights fortress, the knights are next to each other and their king should be between them and the attacking king. The defender must play accurately, though .
There are several drawing positions with two knights against a queen. The best way is to have the knights adjacent to each other on a file or rank, with their king between them and the enemy king. This is not a true fortress since it is not static. The position of the knights may have to change depending on the opponent's moves. In this position (Lolli, 1763),
and Black has an ideal defensive position.
If the knights cannot be adjacent to each other on a file or rank, the second best position is if they are next to each other diagonally (see diagram).
The third type of defensive formation is with the knights protecting each other, but this method is more risky .
Sometimes the two minor pieces can achieve a fortress against a queen even where there are pawns on the board. In
Ree-Hort, Wijk aan Zee 1986 (first diagram), Black had the material disadvantage of rook and bishop against a queen. Dvoretsky writes that Black would probably lose after the natural 1...Bf2+? 2.Kxf2 Rxh4 because of 3.Kg3 Rh7 4.Kf3, followed by a king march to c6, or 3.Qg7!? Rxf4+ 4.Kg3 Rg4+ 5.Kf3, threatening 6.Qf6 or 6.Qc7 . Instead, Hort forced a draw with 1... Rxh4!! 2. Kxh4 Bd4! (imprisoning White's queen) 3. Kg3 Ke7 4.Kf3 Ba1 (second diagram), and the players agreed to a draw. White's queen has no moves, all of Black's pawns are protected, and his bishop will shuttle back and forth on the squares a1, b2, c3, and d4.
At the great New York City 1924 tournament, former world champion Emanuel Lasker was in trouble against his namesake Edward Lasker, but surprised everyone by discovering a new endgame fortress . Despite having only a knight for a rook and pawn, White draws by moving his knight back and forth between b2 and a4. Black's only real winning try is to get his king to c2. However, to do so Black has to move his king so far from the pawn that White can play Ka3–b2 and Nc5xb3, when the rook versus knight ending is an easy draw. The game concluded:
If 99...Ke2, 100.Nc5 Kd2 101.Kb2! (101.Nxb3+?? Kc2 and Black wins) and 102.Nxb3 draws.
Bishop versus rook and bishop pawn on the sixth rank.
A bishop can make a fortress versus a rook and a bishop pawn on the sixth rank, if the bishop is on the color of the pawn's seventh rank square and the defending king is in front of the pawn. In this position, White would win if he had gotten the king to the sixth rank ahead of the pawn. Black draws by keeping the bishop on the diagonal from "a2" to "e6", except when giving check. The bishop keeps the white king off "e6" and checks him if he goes to "g6", to drive him away. A possible continuation:
2.f7 is an interesting attempt, but then Black plays 2...Kg7! and then 3...Bxf7, with a draw. 2...Kg7 prevents 3.Kf6, which would win.
The only move to draw, since the bishop must be able to check the king if it goes to g6.
If 7.f7 Bxf7!: the pawn can be safely when the white king is on h6.
Draw, because White cannot make progress .
A "defense perimeter" is a drawing technique in which the side behind in or otherwise at a disadvantage sets up a perimeter, largely or wholly composed of a pawn chain, that the opponent cannot penetrate. Unlike other forms of fortress, a defense perimeter can often be set up in the middlegame with several pieces remaining on the board.
The above example may seem fanciful, but Black achieved a similar defense perimeter in
Here are some other drawing fortresses .
This game between József Pintér and David Bronstein demonstrates the human play of the endgame. The defender has two ideas: (1) keep the king off the edge of the board and (2) keep the knight close to the king. White reaches the semi-fortress after 71. Nb2!, which falls after 75... Kb5!. White gets to a semi-fortress again in another corner after 90. Ng2+. After 100. Ke3 White cannot hold that semi-fortress any longer, but forms one in another corner after 112. Nb7!. On move 117 White claimed a draw by the fifty move rule .

Subsets and Splits

No community queries yet

The top public SQL queries from the community will appear here once available.