TECHNICAL ENDGAMES
Technical endgames are the closest connection between chess and mathematics. They are for the most part solvable (up to 7 pieces) and governed by clear-cut methods and tactics. This attracts a certain group of people, while others might miss room for creativity and intuition. Personally, I consider it interesting and rewarding to find out the principles that govern specific endgames. Once done, you don’t have to learn too many things by heart anymore.
319. What are the most important technical endgames I should study?
This question I best answered by statistical facts. The following table shows the frequency of typical endings in relation to rook endgames. Representing the most frequent type, rook endgames are functioning as the benchmark with 100%. The third column shows how often each type ends with a draw.
320. Why are rook endings the most frequent type?
Rook endgames occur most frequently because rooks are only brought into play very late. Hence, there are fewer opportunities for exchange.
321. Are all rook endings drawn?
This question is referring to the adage: “All rook endings are drawn!”. Of course, this is a deliberate exaggeration, intending to point out that rook endings have a higher-than-average draw rate. This insight is of great importance for the practical game. In order to save a position, exchanging minor pieces and retaining rooks is the standard recipe.
322. What kind of rook endings should I study?
The table suggests that you should spend a decent amount of time studying rook endgames, with R+P versus R being the most important subset. Also interesting are R+2P versus R and R versus P, just like more complex versions, such as R+4P versus R+3P, where the extra pawn is on the opposite wing.
323. What makes the matchup bishop versus knight so significant?
In my opinion, the bishop versus knight endgame is particularly interesting from a strategic point of view. The different characteristics of the bishop and the knight, whilst having roughly the same value (bishop = 3.55 pawn units, knight = 3.45 pawn units; these figures are averages and relate to the entire duration of a chess game) have a significant influence on the strategic depth of the entire game. The endgame prospects of both pieces influence behavior in the middlegame (What should I exchange? Should I aim for an endgame or avoid it?).
324. Should I specifically study 2 rooks versus 2 rooks?
I suspect that the statistical frequency is skewed by the fact that this constellation is rather fragile and often leads to a pure rook endgame following a rook exchange. We often see this endgame end in a draw, with the weaker side aiming for perpetual check on the 2nd or 7th rank. I don’t think one should study this endgame specifically.
325. Which relevance do the bishop endings have?
Both constellations are very relevant. Bishops of the same color are often the result of successfully exchanging one’s bad bishop against the good bishop of the opponent. One of the main goals then is reaching the endgame with the superior bishop. The creation of opposite-colored bishops is per se a neutral result in the middlegame. However, it often happens that one bishop is much stronger than the other. In the endgame, transferring the game into an endgame with opposite-colored bishops, sometimes at the expensive of a pawn, can be a deliberate act to save the game by fortress.
326. How relevant are queen endings?
In my practice, queen endgames were extremely rare. What’s more, they are so complicated that you’ve forgotten what you’ve learnt a few years later. I therefore consider them unimportant.
327. What are important topics in pawn ending?
Zugzwang is the key concept. Of course you have to fully understand K+P versus K. For positions with more pawns, you should be familiar with the concept of “corresponding squares”. Then there is the topic of majorities and break-throughs. If there is a race, have the technique in mind to fully count the moves of each side and then compare the numbers opposed to doing the usual zig-zag. This could save you precious time.
328. Why is knight versus knight less relevant than other minor piece ending?
It is more tactical, which complicates systematic learning. Apparently, there is a similarity with pawn endings. As knights cannot perform a waiting move, zugzwang is a dominant theme.
329. Should I study bishop pair endgames?
One hundred percent. In the opening or early middle game you sometimes offer other goods in order to get hold of the bishop pair. One example is the line 1.d4 Nf6 2.Bg5 (Trompowsky Attack) e6!? 3.e4 h6 4.Bxf6 Qxf6. Often you have to endure some hardship, knowing that if you come out unscathed, your reward will be a superior ending. There are already model games of Steinitz, in which he shows how the bishops can dominate B+N or N+N. Appreciating the power of the bishops in the endgame, will help you make good decisions in the middlegame.
330. What can we learn from the matchup rook versus B+N or N+N?
While you should, in the vast majority of the cases, avoid having the rook against the bishop pair, the confrontation of rook versus the other minor piece combos is very interesting, given that the rook has one or two pawns assisting it. While in the opening or early middlegame the minor pieces are superior to R+P, in the endgame the tables can turn, especially if there is a passed pawn involved. The unique feature of the rook is that it gradually gains in strengths as the moves go by and pieces are getting exchanged. From a miserably bystander, the rook can turn into a frightening force, once most obstacles are gone.
331. Should I lean how to give checkmate with bishop and knight?
The answer to this question is very subjective, as chances are you will never be able to prove such skill in a tournament game. Nevertheless, there are some arguments in favor of learning it. First of all, it is so basic, that it should be part of a basic chess education. You call yourself a chess player and cannot deliver check mate against the helpless king with so much superiority? Really? Leaving this honor-aspect aside, why not consider it a challenge? What makes a good challenge? It should not be too easy (boring), nor can it be too difficult (frustrating). This ending actually hits the sweat spot and is within reach of most chess players. Finally, there is also some entertaining element to it. You can tease your club mates by setting up this ending with the imperative: “Now, proof that you are a real chess player!” They will turn it down with the words: “Proof it yourself!” Well, you will then proof it and be the hero of the day. 🙂
