Upgrade to Chess.com Premium!

The "Simplest" Thing in Chess (Part Six)

  • GM Gserper
  • | 13/05/2013
  • | Visto 9590 veces
  • | 13 comentarios

I hope the previous five parts of this article managed to convince you that the King and Pawn endgames are very complicated.  Therefore, a decision to go for such an endgame is a major commitment and shouldn't be taken lightly. In the final part of this series, I want to show very instructive examples where extremely strong chess players made the same grave error of trading the last pair of pieces and going straight to the lost King and Pawn endgame!

The first example is the most amazing. I cannot explain how GM Spielmann, who was definitely one of the leading players of his time, could go for a basic pawn endgame which was completely lost for him. My only guess is he was extremely tired after a very long game:

In the next game another famous chess player made a similar mistake that cost him half a point. GM Tartakower thought that going for a King and Pawn endgame was the fastest and surest way to convert his enormous advantage into a win. Unfortunately, he underestimated how tricky simple looking pawn endgame can be...
In the next game a very strong GM (and the inventor of the Sveshnikov variation in the Sicilian) makes the same basic mistake....
Grandmasters Flohr and Taimanov belonged to the World Elite at their prime time, but both of them made the same basic mistake against Michail Botvinnik.  Did the Patriarch hypnotize them? Laughing
Finally, let me present you a recent game played by two modern Super Grandmasters:
I hope my dear readers you will avoid the common mistakes we discussed in this article and all the King and Pawn endgames in your games will be winning for you!

Comentarios


  • hace 14 meses

    GM_rudy

    TQ SIR

  • hace 14 meses

    Ricardoruben

    It is always kind of soothing to see this super GM make that kind of mistakes, they are human after all!! (just talented super hard working players that have been doing this for decades!!) Very nice series of articles Sir, thank you for them!! :)

  • hace 14 meses

    shotdown

    Playing against the Patriarch was already mistake ... playing King and Pawn endgame with him ... double mistake ;)

  • hace 14 meses

    MoonlessNight

    Botvinnik vs Flohr 54...b5 should lead to a draw, not 54...Kf7?

    Edit: wait, b5 doesn't draw, white wins easy

  • hace 14 meses

    sairajdragon

    how do you know if the resulting endgame is winning

  • hace 14 meses

    chasm1995

    Mr. Gserper, thank you for making articles understandable at my level.  I think that it is a very important aspect of the game that we all need to learn, and I will certainly benefit from this series.

  • hace 14 meses

    NM ozzie_c_cobblepot

    My problem with king and pawn endings is that I always suspect that the result is determined - but it's very challenging to figure it out.

    So I'll be reluctant to go into it because it "might be a forced draw" but I can't see it, so I don't do it. And maybe later it turns out it was a forced win...

  • hace 14 meses

    GM Gserper

    Leopoldz

    You're absolutely correct. My guess is it was a wrong input of the game. I think in the real game Black played 64... Ra5 instead of 64...Rh5  (that's why White played 65. Rb4 to defend against coming 65...Ra4+), then everything looks correct.  This is my best guess....

  • hace 14 meses

    Leopoldz

    first game : Rudolf Spielmann vs. Oldrich Duras at move 65, black missed a skewer! Maybe its me, but I don't see why, 65... Rh4 is not good.  Thx

  • hace 14 meses

    fwhoberg

    I often trade off into a pawn endgame only to lose the game the theory you have decussed here gave me a  new understand of pawn endgames.Smile  

  • hace 14 meses

    nosibalasi

    It is really very important not to forget the principle of opposition because the first two diagrams above are examples of basic opposition.

  • hace 14 meses

    Sutirtha11

    Excellent series. King and pawn endgames can be very very tricky!!

Ir arriba

Publique su respuesta: