Rook vs. Two Minor Pieces

An unexpected win this morning motivated some study of rook and pawns vs. knight, bishop, and pawns. Errors characterized the game, but the ending interests me.

I was slightly better early in the middle game when I blundered into a slightly worse position, and then blundered again into a lost position, but I played on. My opponent blundered away the win to reach an ending that had strong drawing chances despite a dynamic imbalance. He missed an idea that gave him a slight advantage at one point, and then dropped a piece to give me a winning advantage.

White to move

33.Rxh7+??

Had White played 33.Rxb7, I might have decided that it was time to respect my opponent's superior position (as well as a rating 300 higher than mine) and gracefully resign.

33...Qxh7 34.Rxh7+ Kxh7

The position is equal. ChessBase's "Report" feature is useful for studying this sort of ending. A quick glance through the nearly 300 games that are found in MegaDatabase seem to indicate that the minor pieces prevail more often than the rook. Searching my personal database for this material turns up three previous games and I'm always the side with the rook. I have a win, draw, and loss in the three games.

Later in the game, after a pair of pawns are exchanged, the same search mechanism turns up 22 games, most of which were decided by such tactical errors as the rook and king walking into a fork by the bishop or the knight.

We continued.

35.h4 Kg6 36.hxg5 fxg5

White to move

With mobile pawns and each side having a majority, anything is possible. The rook's greater mobility seems promising, but White also could develop an advantage to play for a win. More than likely, good play on both sides should lead to a draw.

37.Ne5 Kf5 38.Nf7 Re7 39.Nd6+ Kg6 40.Nc8

A fork!

Black to move

40...Rh7+ 41.Kg1 a6

Both pieces escape.

42.Nd6 Rd7 43.Kf1 Kf6?!

43...Rc7 44.Ke2 Rc3 45.Nxb7 Rxa3=

The position is easier to draw, but Black was oblivious to the dangers.

44.Ke2 Ke6 45Ne4 Kf5 46.Nd6+ Ke6 47.Ne4 Kf5

Black is anticipating a repetition.

White to move

48.Ke3!?

Activating the king is the right idea, but there is a better way.

48.Nc5! Rh7 49.Kd3 and we see that White intends to dispose of Black's pawn majority. White missed an opportunity to gain a clear advantage. Even so, White is better.

48...Re7 49.f3 g4 50.Bh4

50.Kd4 was the right idea.

50...Re6 51.Bg3 gxf3 52.gxf3 Rb6

Black activates his rook for counterplay.

White to move

53.Nd6+ Kg6?

53...Ke6 was needed.

54.Nc4?

54.Ke4 and White again has a clear advantage. In this case, the f-pawn will work its way up the board with the help of the two minor pieces and the king until Black is forced to give up the rook.

54...Rb3+ 55.Ke4 b5 56.Ne5+ Kg7

White to move

57.f4??

Inexplicable.

Play might have continued 57.Nc6 Rxa3 58.Bd6 Ra2 59.Nd4 and neither Black pawn can advance.

57...Rxg3-+ 58.Nd3 Kf7 59.f5 Rg4+ 60.Ke5 Ra4 61.Kd5 Rxa3 62.Ne5= Kf6 63.Nc6 Kf6 63.Nc6 Kxf5 64.Kc5 Rc3+ 65.Kb6 Rxc6 and White resigned.

After the game, I spent some time looking through endgame books to see who had written about this material imbalance. Dvoretsky's Endgame Manual has four pages.

This position from Beliavsky,A. -- Dolmatov,S., Minsk 1979 shows a creative idea worth remembering.

Black to move

38...c4!! 39.Bxc4 Rc8 40.Bd3 a3! and the game continued another 16 moves. Both the game and Dvorersky's analysis are worthy of study.

Tough Choices

Reading is central to my life. Last night, I finished John Steinbeck, Tortilla Flat (1935) and placed an order for In Dubious Battle (1936). I am working through all of Steinbeck's books in order of publication. Herman Melville, The Confidence-Man: His Masquerade (1857), which I started appropriately on 1 April, is slower going.

I also read chess books and usually more than one at a time. I bought the first edition of Dvoretsky's Endgame Manual (2003) within a year of its first publication and later acquired the second edition on my Kindle app, a second copy of the first edition in Chessbase format, and the fifth edition. Dvoretsky's book has served as an indispensable endgame resource and frequently the first of my many endgame books that I open when I want to understand something. As I wrote in late-April, the chapter on rook endings is part of my regular work at present (see "Working through Dvoretsky").

After racing through 300 Most Important Chess Positions (2018) in 74 days from December to March, the sequel, 300 Most Important Tactical Chess Positions (2020) has on a table in the living room, on my desk, or in a chess bag as I am beginning a slower process of working through it.

Some newer books are offering me tough choices or distractions from focus.

Think Like a Super-GM (2022) by Michael Adams and Philip Hurtado joined my chess book collection on 1 May. I took it with me on a trip that weekend (see "Think Like a Super-GM"). When I returned home, I set up the second position on the dining room table, looked at it some with neither a note pad nor discipline and focus. I had to remove it from the table in preparation for hosting a family get together on Mother's Day.

I remain a subscriber and occasional reader of Chess Informant, which now serves class players as well as it served masters in the days before ready access to recent games that came with the internet. I referenced an opening article from CI 162 in "When preparation meets opportunity", showing a game where I beat a player gambling with the Budapest.

At Spring Break Chess Camp, Jim Maki was using a lot of challenging checkmate problems with the young players. In a conversation about sources for such exercises after one of the sessions, I immediately remembered Anthology of Chess Problems, 2nd ed. (2021), a reissue of the anthology published in the 1990s by Milan Velimirovic and Marjan Kovacevic. I took it to camp the next day to show Maki, and brought it again to the youth tournament that Saturday when Maki and I were working the analysis table. It was with me during chess lessons with young players the following week. The mate in twos that begin the book are challenging enough to keep me busy far longer than I am likely to invest in the effort.

Two days ago, another book arrived that I bought not only because the topic is interesting, but also because I really liked the cover art by Kallia Kleisarchaki.

Cyrus Lakdawala takes on the task of ranking chess players past and present in The Greatest (2025). No one will agree with his rankings, of course, because the topic remains more interesting so long as chess enthusiasts enjoy arguing with any and every list ever constructed.

Naturally, I immediately found fault with his chronology that begins with Philidor. Giulio Cesare Polerio's innovations and Gioachino Greco's improvements on those innovations remain underappreciated in chess history. Nonetheless, I find no fault either with his top four, nor with the sequence he offers. I also find his defense of the arrangement logical and compelling. Numbers five and six were the focus of Chess Skills for two months in 2021. 

After his "Classical Era Top Tier List", Lakdawala lists twenty criteria that informed his list. The Greatest will be earning more of my attention in the coming days and weeks and I work through at least some of the 80 games that Lakdawala selected to develop the theme of chess greatness.

From time to time, I am still also working through P.H. Clarke, 100 Soviet Chess Miniatures (1963). It might be how I take my coffee in the morning if not for always playing at least two words games with my wife on our iPads--Scrabble and Words with Friends.

Working through Dvoretsky

Dvoretsky's Endgame Manual by Mark Dvoretsky, and now revised by Karsten Mūller, is reputed to be too difficult for most players below master. I was a C-Class player (~1500 USCF) when I bought and started studying the first edition of Dvoretsky's Endgame Manual (2003) the year after it came out. Several years later, perhaps about the time that I became A-Class (above 1800), I created cards for reviewing and training pawn endings--all of the blue diagrams in the first chapter. I would be lying if I claimed that I can instantly play correctly all 48 positions despite many hours with these cards, the print copy of the first edition, and the e-book edition of the second edition. However, I do know well at least 75% of these positions and this knowledge has served me well in many games.

I also created similar cards for the first 24 blue diagrams in the rook endgame chapter. These cards served as prompts for some endgame lessons with some young chess students during the spring break chess camp earlier this month (see "Stockfish's Curve Ball"). My difficulty with some of the positions convinced me that it was time to revisit the rook chapter of Dvoretsky's Endgamne Manual. 

I do not disagree with those who opine that the book is not aimed at players of my strength. However, I must insist that it depends on how you read. It might take me a month or longer to get through the 24 blue diagrams (now gray in the fifth edition [2020], the one revised by Mūller after Dvortsky's death). Some of my lessons with a student the past year had us working thorough all of the rook endings in Jesus de la Villa, 100 Endgames You Must Know, 4th ed. (2015) and then I worked through all the positions in Thomas Engqvist, 300 Most Important Chess Positions (2018)., which included a fair number of challenging rook endings. I believe that I'm ready for the advanced work in Dvoretsky.

I do not expect to get through the entire chapter on rook endgames. For the time being, however, I am pushing through carefully and slowly. Some days I study one or two positions. I read Dvoretsky's analysis and then practice many of the positions against Stockfish. 

Tuesday, I worked on exercise 9/4. First, I studied the diagram. Then, I set it up on my iPad and studied it longer. The clock started when I made my first move.

Playing against an engine usually presents information that play against humans never reveals. The engine presents its evaluation of the position. 

Black to move

I first considered 1...Ra6, but saw that White would force an exchange of rooks or win my pawn for no cost and leave me in a hopeless position of passive defense against a passed f-pawn.

Then, I considered putting my rook behind the king or the pawn, but saw that would fail.

The key was understanding that my king needed to move to the short side.

1...Kf8!

At first Stockfish on the iPad gave the evaluation as 2.6, but that quickly dropped and after several seconds, settled at 0.1. I knew my move was correct.

2.Rb6 Ra1 3.Rxf6 Kg8

Short side is the only move that holds.

4.Re6 Kf8

Rg1+ is also okay. Occupation of the promotion square should be sought when possible, moving to the short side when forced by checks or mate threats.

5.Rb6 Rf1

Alternately, Black can play 5...Rg1+ 6.Kf6 Kg8

6.Rb8+ Ke7 7.Rb7+

The point of 5...Rf1 was that f6+ would be met with Rxf6+.

8.Rb2

Black to move

Matters remain critical: Black must hold the rook on the f-file, move the king to e7 again, or throw in a check that leads to a mate threat and then retreat to the short side.

8...Rf3 9.Rb8+ Kf8 10.Rb7+ Kf8 11.Rf7+ Kg8 12.Rg7+

Black to move

12...Kh8

This move holds, but the defense might be easier after 12...Kf8. For instance, 13.Rh7 Rg3+ 14.Kf6 Kg8

13.Re7 Rg3+

Only move.

14.Kf7 Ra3

Now, I was forced to return the rook to the long side.

15.Rc7 Ra1 16.Kg6

Black to move

16...Rg1+

Again, there was only one move that held.

17.Kf6 Ra1 18.Kf7

The pawn's advance can no longer be prevented, but it cannot yet advance far enough for victory.

18...Ra2 19.f6

Black to move

19...Kh7

This move was necessary with an important idea that is revealed in the next few moves.

20.Re7 Ra3 21.Rd7 Ra2 22.Ke6+

Black to move

22...Kg6

This move--a vital defensive resource--was only possible because of 19...Kh7. 22...Kh6 also holds, but I did not consider it as threatening the pawn should the king step away seems best.

22...Kg8 loses to a technique that is easy to learn. 23.Rd8+ Kh7 24.f7. With the rook controlling the promotion square, White's king deals with checks from the rear by marching towards Black's rook. When the checks run out, the pawn promotes.

23.Rd6 Re2 24.Kd5 Kf7

24...Rd2+ seems simpler.

25.Rd7+ Kxf6=

Exercise 9/5 proved more difficult. I needed quite a few take backs to find my way.

White to move

The position appears at least twice in ChessBase's Mega 2024. Dvoretsky references Rohde,M. -- Cramling,D., Innsbruck 1977, where Rohde was not successful in winning. 

Dvoretsky also mentions analysis of the position by Nikolay Kopaev. I am able to find this analysis in Harold van der Heijden's Endgame Study Database VI (2020), but not volume 5 of Comprehensive Chess Endings by Yuri Averbakh and Kopaev.

"White wins, but with some hard work," Dvoretsky writes (398).

Dvoretsky's Endgame Manual is indeed challenging, but it is not out of reach for a class player looking for instructive practice against the silicon beasts.

Stockfish's Curve Ball

During chess camp last week in a session ambitiously called "advanced rook endgames", I had the students choose a position from a stack of cards that were face down. These cards have 24 endgame diagrams, some of which specify the side to move. One of those they chose, I had regarded as reasonably simple. I set it up in the Fritz GUI with Stockfish 16 loaded as the main engine, and we (the students with my guidance) played it against Stockfish.

The engine defied Dvoretsky, who wrote, "Black's rook must remain passive, staying on the eighth rank" (Dvoretsky's Endgame Manual. 5th ed. [2020], 161). I explained to the students what I recalled of Dvoretsky's explanation, and drew the arrows visible in the diagram.

White to move

From my lead, the students chose the first move well.

1.Rb7 Rd8 2.Rh7

Only after struggling against the engine's surprising response did we come to understand that 2.Rg7+ is better.

2...Rd6!

3.f7 is not possible. We tried 3.Rg7+ Kf8 4.Rh7 Kg8 and realized something else was needed.
3.Re7 Kf8 confused us, although it should not have.
After 3.Rb7 Rd8, we felt that our progress was still missing something.

After several trials and error, we found the correct idea.

3.Rg7+ Kf8 4.Ra7 Rd8 5.Rh7

Black to move

Now Black must allow either the skewer or f7+ followed by the skewer.

Playing several Lucena positions against Stockfish over the past few years, I've learned that the engine often diverges from the line given in the textbook. Often this complicates the solution and the human must solve a problem.

These curve balls are why computer training is valuable.

Fighting Spirit

As noted in a couple of recent posts,* I prefer to play on in seemingly equal positions. Yesterday, a player rated above 2000 was not having a good game against me and I won a piece through a fork. Later in the game, my own error allowed a fork that returned the material. Then the exchange of queens gave us an ending with two rooks each after only 28 moves. The game went on another 50 moves.

White to move

Stripes,J (1802) -- Internet Opponent (2011) [D09]
Live Chess Chess.com, 21.03.2025

29.Rxe3 Rf2 30.Rd7 Rxa2 31.Ree7

At this point, I knew that I could not lose and considered forcing a draw.

31...a5 32.Rg7+ Kf8 33.Rgf7+ Ke8 34.Rde7+ Kd8 35.Rd7+ Ke8 36.Rfe7+ Kf8

It may have been here that the first draw offer was made by my opponent. He made two.

White to move

37.Rxh7 Kg8 38.Rdg7+ Kf8

Here, I spent 90 seconds in a ten minute game considering whether I wanted to play on or force the draw, concluding that best play will result in a draw. Nonetheless, with better pawn structure, I risked very little playing on. Moreover, I could force the exchange of one set of rooks.

39.Rxg6 Rd8

Black threatens checkmate in one.

40.Rh8+ Kf7 41.Rxd8 Kxg6 42.Rd5

Black to move

42...Kh5??

Either Ra3 or Rb2 holds things equal.

43.h3?

My failure returns the game to equal. 43.h4 was the winning move.

43...a4?? 44.bxa4+- Rxa4 45.Rxc5 Ra1+ 46.Kg2 Ra2+ 47.Kf3 Ra3+

White to move

At this point, I was fairly certain that my position was winning, but spent another full minute finding the way to proceed.

48.Kf2 Ra2+ 49.Ke1 Rg2

White to move

On the second opportunity to take advantage of the pin, I saw it.

50.h4! Kg4

50...Rxg3 51.Rxg5+ Rxg5 52.hxg5 Kxg5 leads to a position where White must move to the left of the pawn to successfully gain control of the key squares. An example appears on the first page of Dvoretsky's Endgame Manual (2003).

51.Rxg5+

Two connected passed pawns with a rook leading them down the board are nearly always decisive.

51...Kf3 52.c5 Ke3 53.Kf1 Rf2+ 54.Kg1 Rc2 55.Rf5 Rc1+ 56.Kg2 Rc2+ 57.Kh3 Ke4

White to move

58.Rg5

Sensible would be 58.Rf8 Rxc5 59.Kg4 cutting Black's king off from the activity on the g- and h-files. The c-pawn is not important.

58...Kf3 59.Rd5 Rc1 60.Rd3+ Ke4 61.Rd8 Rxc5 62.Rf8 Rc7 63.h5 Rh7 64.Kh4 Ke5 65.g4 Ke6 66.g5 Ke7 67.Rf4

Black to move

67...Rf7

67...Ke6 at least forces me to show that I know what I'm doing. Offering the trade of rooks makes for a simple pawn ending, which the computer finds that I played perfectly. My opponent took the game all the way to checkmate.

68.Rxf7+ Kxf7 69.Kg4 Kg7 70.Kf5 Kh8 71.Kf6 Kg8 72.g6 Kh8 73.g7+ Kg8 74.h6 Kh7 75.Kf7 Kxh6 76.g8Q Kh5 77.Qg3 Kh6 78.Qh4# 1-0

*"Playing Drawn Endgames" and "Equal is not yet Drawn".

Tactics Training

These days, it seems that I spend more time doing puzzles online (chessdotcom mostly, but also Lichess and Chess Tempo) than working with positions in books. Still, for serious improvement in tactical vision and calculation, books are superior.

After racing through Thomas Engqvist, 300 Most Important Chess Positions (2018) in less than three months, I’m more highly motivated to keep 300 Most Important Tactical Chess Positions (2020) near the center of my chess activities through the rest of 2025. Four of the first five positions in the book have forcing continuations that run deep enough that I anticipate some challenge working through the book. Difficulty makes the enterprise worthwhile.

Today’s position arose in Mason,J.—Winawer,S., Vienna 1882. Engqvist’s analysis is instructive. At least three problems for players at different levels can be extracted from Mason’s combination.

Engqvist's position is before Mason's 40.Rxg5 (see photograph). If Black refuses the rook sacrifice, 40...Qf8 41.Rg6 controls the sixth rank. Then, 41...Rxf5

White to move

42.Qxf5! Qxf5 43.Rg7+ Nd7 44.Rxd7+ Kc8 45.Rxb8+ (only move) 45...Kxb8 46.Rb7+ and whichever way Black's king steps, Black's queen is coming off the board and White has a winning endgame.

After the line played in the game (40.Rxg5 hxg5 41.Qh7+ Nd7 42.Bxd7 Qg8--this position appeared as a exercise on chessgames.com in 2003--43.Rb7+ Kxb7), there is a more basic exercise position.

White to move

The discovery (44.Bc8+) is Engqvist's theme for this exercise, and the interference is an important aspect of why it works. Posters on chessgames.com and Engqvist valorize Mason's technique bringing home the full point for the resulting ending of queen and bishop vs. two rooks.

The Superiority of Books

For beginning students, the sequencing in such books as Sergey Ivashchenko, Manual of Chess Combinations (1997) and Susan Polgar, A World Champion’s Guide to Chess (2015) will lead to much more rapid growth in tactics skill than random positions online. Of course, with certain membership levels, chessdotcom and Chess Tempo allow training with particular themes and rating levels, so these can be tweaked with appropriate guidance.

For players who know basic patterns, but need work on strengthening calculation skills and assessing resulting positions after a combination, such books as Mark Dvoretsky, Secrets of Chess Tactics (1992), Paata Gaprindashvili, Imagination in Chess (2004), and Cyrus Lakdawala, Tactical Training (2021) offer abundant exercises.

Yakov Nieshtadt, Improve Your Chess Tactics (2012) is highly regarded for its organizational scheme and definitions, while Yuri Averbakh, Chess Tactics for Advanced Players (1992) articulates a notion of contacts that should be more common in chess literature.

Ten Books to Achieve 1800+

Having seen many lists of top ten chess books recommended for players at different levels, I thought it time to reflect on how books contributed to my rise from C Class to A Class. My first non-provisional rating was 1425 when I was in my mid-30s. I played chess competitively many years earlier, but no events were rated. In the late-1970s, I had a USCF correspondence rating. But when I returned to active play after graduate school, the USCF had lost the records of my postal chess.

I rejoined the Spokane Chess Club in late 1995 and played in my first rated OTB event in March 1996. In October, I played my sixth event and no longer had a provisional rating. By the end of the year, my rating had risen to 1495, but would not rise above that point until 2002. I remained in C Class until fall 2006. While on this plateau, I was gaining both knowledge and skills, but rating progress was slow. Too much online blitz may have held me back.

My journey from wholly ignorant beginner in the late-1960s, to competitive high school player in the late-1970s, to active C Class club member in the mid-1990s involved a lot of book study. Further progress from C Class in my 30s to high A Class in my early 50s included many books, active play, private lessons, chess videos, and I also started coaching elementary students in 2000.

It is no easy matter to choose ten books. By the time I reached A Class, I owned close to 300 chess books and there are very few I had not spent some time reading. At the same time, there are also very few that I read wholly. Some books, or my manner of reading them, may have held me back (just as hundreds of three minute blitz games every month may not have helped me).

The Ten

In November 1996, I played in the Washington Class in Federal Way. There was a book seller set up in one of the rooms near the playing hall. I spent a bit of time there talking with David Weinstock, owner of ChessMate. In our discussions, he recommended a book to me. I was skeptical. The title sounded more basic than my own self-assessment of my needs. Nonetheless, when I found the book at Auntie’s Bookstore when I was back in Spokane, I bought it and started to read it. It was transformative.

Consider my list of ten, pictured above and described below, as a provisional suggestion rooted in experience. What worked for me may or may not work for you. Read all recommendations with skepticism, but also with openness to trying something that might help. There are no magic books guaranteed to improve your chess, but only a few will fail to teach you something of value.

1) Georges Renaud, and Victor Kahn, The Art of the Checkmate (1953) was the book David suggested, and is my first recommendation. Having spent many hours in the 1970s learning the basic checkmates with heavy pieces and even two bishops, and having delivered many fine checkmates in many games, it was hard to believe there was much I could learn from such a book. Reading it, however, exposed me to new checkmate patterns, including some that I had seen, but not absorbed, from a book I studied in 1975: Irving Chernev, The 1000 Best Short Games of Chess (1955). Renaud and Kahn not only taught me new patterns, but they gave me a framework for thinking about checkmate and checkmate threats.

As David Weinstock had, I began to recommend The Art of the Checkmate to any and all who would listen, and also to many who ignore what I say. I still do. This book helped me, and it can help you. But there are other books that could substitute, and might be even better. Victor Henkin, 1000 Checkmate Combinations (2011) takes a slightly different approach. It also teaches an abundance of vital checkmate patterns and greatly exceeds Renaud and Kahn in the amount of study material. Antonio Gude, Fundamental Checkmates (2016) is another option. It is comprehensive and to an extent combines the approaches of Henkin with that of Renaud and Kahn. One can find dozens of other books on checkmate patterns, but these three stand above the others. Get one of them, or even all three.

Vital

2) For a year or longer, Lev Alburt, Chess Training Pocket Book: 300 Most Important Positions and Ideas, 2nd ed. (2000) was my bedside reading. I read it cover-to-cover twice. Alburt’s book was the only tactics book I finished prior to early 2023 when I finished all 1320 exercises in Sergey Ivashchenko, The Manual of Chess Combinations (1999). It is not an ordinary tactics book for practicing basic ideas, but rather, a small set of carefully chosen positions with tactical and positional concepts. It also has a small number of vital endgame positions.

Many grandiose claims have been made by different authors about the legendary 300 positions, but there should be no doubt that careful and deliberate study of a small number of carefully selected positions will take your game up a notch. Alburt’s book helped me. A few years after completing it, I began study of another book focused on 300 carefully selected positions: Rashid Ziyatdinev, GM-RAM: Essential Grandmaster Knowledge (2000). More recently, Thomas Engqvist has gained my attention, now with a trilogy of books containing 300 in the title.

An Idea Worth Considering

3) Quantity matters, too, when it comes to tactics training. A classic that has lifted the skills of generations of chess players has also been part of my training. Fred Reinfeld, 1001 Winning Chess Sacrifices and Combinations (1955) deserves a place in every chess player’s library. In 2008, I spent quite a bit of time playing these positions against the computer. Often I could find the tactic, achieve a clearly superior position, and yet still fail to defeat HIARCS (see "Where the Rubber Meets the Road"). Reinfeld organizes the chapters by themes—forks, pins, double attacks, and so on. I set my database containing these positions to open randomly so I did not know which theme to look for. But I also use the book, either solving from the diagrams or sometimes setting up the positions on a board.

Endgames have been vital to my success. In 2007-2008, I invested a lot of time teaching some elementary rook endings to my top student, the strongest third grader in my city. That summer, in the Spokane City Championship, I played two rook endings against FM David Sprenkle, drawing one game.

Currently, I’m on a collector’s quest to have 64 endgame texts in my personal library. The quest stems from my enjoyment studying positions with few pieces, my conviction that endgame knowledge is vital for all skill levels, and my involvement in an online community of book lovers, Chess Book Collectors on Facebook. During my rise from the 1500s in 2002 to high-1900s in 2012, much time was invested in endgame study.

4) The endgame book that did the most for me was Mark Dvoretsky, Dvoretsky’s Endgame Manual (2003). As one of ten books to recommend to class players, Dvoretsky is a controversial choice. Many players find it too difficult for anyone below master. Poppycock! Chess books are not novels. One does not read every word. Read the part that makes sense and push through a bit that stretches and challenges you. I have read the long chapter on pawn endings in Dvoretsky’s Endgame Manual several times and have flash cards containing the 48 blue diagrams that I use for review, study, and teaching (see "Pawn Endings Flash Cards"). I’ve struggled through perhaps half of the chapter on rook endings and made flash cards for the first 24 blue diagrams. Other chapters I have dipped into from time-to-time.

During the years spent studying Dvoretsky’s Endgame Manual, other books have also supplemented my work. These include, Bruce Pandolfini, Pandolfini’s Endgame Course (1988); Jeremy Silman, Silman’s Complete Endgame Course (2007); Karsten Müller and Frank Lamprecht, Fundamental Chess Endings (2001); and several others. My top recommendation for those looking to begin endgame study is Yury Averbakh, Chess Endings: Essential Knowledge (1993). There are many choices. Choose that one that you like, but do not neglect the endgame. Make endgame study a priority if you want to play better chess.

Splurge

5) Jacob Aagard, Excelling at Technical Chess (2004) also concerns the endgame. However, it is distinct from the endgame manuals listed above. The core of the book focuses on “seven technical tools”—schematic thinking, weaknesses, domination, do not hurry, passed pawns, how to arrange your pawns, and freaky aspects. Aagaard develops each of these ideas with compelling prose and detailed game analysis. As he states in the beginning, this book follows an approach that has made Mikhail Shereshevsky, Endgame Strategy so highly regarded. The technical tools are worthy of detailed attention, and I hope to find time to explore them in more detail. I blazed through this book is a couple of days, reading all the prose and glancing superficially at the game analysis. However, this superficial reading was enough to transform my game. My endgame play became more resilient. Formerly, I would often offer or accept a draw in seemingly equal positions. After reading the book, I play out most positions to the end, often lone kings. If there is any reason to play on—an imbalance, a weakness of any sort in my opponent’s position, even a better king position—a draw is anathema unless it secures a tournament victory.

Annotated games have always been a regular part of my chess study. In my youth, I spent many hours playing through games from three GM tournaments that resulted in books that I purchased: San Antonio, 1972; Leningrad, 1973 (the 42nd Soviet Championship); and Wijk aan Zee, 1975. In addition, I bought and still have two books by David Levy that were collections of games by specific players: Karpov’s Collected Games: All 530 Available Encounters, 1961-1974 (1975); and Gligoric’s Best Games, 1945-1970 (1972). All these books influenced my play as a teenager as I sought to imitate the play of the world’s elite.

6) In my 40s, I had many more chess books to choose from and studied annotated games from many of them. One source of such games that I returned to frequently is Garry Kasparov, My Great Predecessors, 5 vols. (2003-2006). Kasparov culls some of the best insights from many years of chess literature and presents many of the most important games of every world champion before him, as well as many contenders for that title who fell short. Chess history offers a reliable foundation for the development of chess skill. Although Kasparov does a poor job of documenting his sources (see my Patriots and Peoples blog for examples of sourcing problems in the writing of US history), the series remains an important practical overview of chess history.

7) Paul Morphy’s games are particularly useful to chess players who want to play well. Perhaps one day I will be able to report that I have played through every one of his available games. So far, I have been through at least one-third of them, some of them many times. His eighteen tournament games have been imposed by me on some two dozen students, who have been through all of them. I’ve shown the Opera game to students at least one hundred times and of course know it fully. For insights into Morphy’s play, few books are in league with Valeri Beim, Paul Morphy: A Modern Perspective (2005). This book has enriched my study.

8) Chess Informant was long the indispensable source for current master games from before I took up the game in the 1960s into the twenty-first century. Now, of course, these games are readily available from many sources. In 1996, as I was coming back to chess with some seriousness of purpose, I was curious about Informant, which I had seen only in the USCF sales catalog. At the Washington Class, however, David Weinstock had some on the table. He allowed me to look at them and we talked about how they were organized. A month or so later, I included Informant 64 in an order of books from USCF sales. It aided my correspondence play in a concrete way (see "Playing by the Book"). More importantly, learning the Informant system of codes changed my thought processes during play. There are so many things that one contemplates during a chess game while looking for the right moves or the correct plan. Sometimes these thoughts are noise that interferes with clear focus on what matters. To an extent, the limited analytical possibilities in the Informant codes distills chess down to things that really matter in the quest for advantage.

As I grew as a player, Chess Informant was a useful tool. Today’s Informants are changing with the information explosion and are oriented more towards the needs of class players than they were in the past. Give them a try.

A Growing Collection

Of course, I did not rise from C Class to strong A Class without studying the works of Jeremy Silman. His endgame book is already listed above, although it was less useful to me than Dvoretsky. In fact, the day I bought it, I read everything through the section on B Class, finding very little that I did not know. Silman’s endgame book has done more for my teaching than for my own progress as a player. That’s plenty! His writing is compelling and many of his metaphors and personal anecdotes are unforgettable.

I bought and read (partly, of course) How to Reassess Your Chess, 3rd. ed. (1993); The Reassess Your Chess Workbook: How to Master Chess Imbalances (2001); The Amateur’s Mind: Turning Chess Misconceptions into Chess Mastery, 2nd ed. (1999); and The Complete Book of Strategy: Grandmaster Techniques from A to Z (1998). When it finally came out, I added How to Reassess Your Chess: Chess Mastery through Chess Imbalances, 4th ed. (2010), but my rating had risen above 1800 before then.

9) Of these books, Reassess Your Chess and the companion workbook were most useful in helping centralize imbalances in my thinking. When I need to win a tournament game, seeking imbalances from the very first move often proves vital.

The Complete Book of Strategy did nothing for my game and very little for my teaching. Its usefulness has been so slight that I struggle to show proper supportive enthusiasm when a young student has shown me that they just acquired it. I must remind myself that there is a difference between this book’s presence in a chess library of more than 400 volumes that includes several dictionaries and encyclopedias, and a chess library for which this book is the first book acquired. It is a good book, even though it does not meet my needs.

What about the Opening?

In high school, I spent many hours studying lines in I. A. Horowitz, Chess Openings: Theory and Practice (1964). In the 1990s, Walter Korn, and Nick DeFirmian, eds. Modern Chess Openings, 13th ed. (1990) took its place. Even more time was spent on opening monographs, including several on two related variations of the Sicilian Defense that feature an early e5 push by Black. There is some evidence this study hurt my game, or at least retarded my improvement. I tried to memorize lines and often faltered when my opponents deviated from the lines that I knew.

Use at Your Own Risk

In 2003, I began to switch from the Sicilian to the French as my primary defense against 1.e4. The French Defense is not superior to the Sicilian. It might even be a worse choice, but for me it marked a shift in how I approached opening study. Rather than grinding through lines in a book, I sought understanding of the principles, of basic concepts, such as one finds articulated clearly in José Capablanca, Chess Fundamentals (1921), of the ideas behind the moves. Unquestionably, I learned many lines, but when my opponents deviated from these, I was prepared. My play improved.

Detailed opening study and learning concrete lines has aided my preparation for specific opponents in several cases. At a crucial moment while still a B Class player, I won the Spokane Contender’s tournament, earning a shot at the title of Spokane City Champion. Expectations of victory were nearly non-existent. No one expected a B Class player rated in the 1730s to prevail over FM David Sprenkle, rated in the 2250s, down considerably from his peak. As preparation, I spent close to 40 hours on two semi-obscure variations: the Raphael variation against the Dutch Defense for when I had the White pieces, and a seemingly risky Nh6 idea for Black in the French Advance. It took Sprenkle 72 moves to compel my resignation in the French, and I drew my second game with White. It was a very good day.

Most of the time in tournament play, however, such extensive opening preparation is more of a crap shoot. Unless an opponent walks into your pet line, where is the benefit? Tactics win and lose games. Endgames keep chances alive as players grow weary or hungry.

10) Hence, my tenth recommended book is one that I’ve read very little, but that exemplifies how I have come to believe opening study should be pursued. Reuben Fine, The Ideas Behind the Chess Openings (1943) is out of date in terms of the line presented, as should be expected. But, players of the French Defense well-know that White’s pawn on d4 is always a target. The Sicilian Defense is always grounded in creating pawn imbalances and active piece play in the quest for equality and even winning chances.

Other Books

Many other books helped me in my successful quest to reach A Class, and remain there for fourteen years so far, as well as my quest to rise into Expert Class, falling just short and less a goal in my 60s than it was in my mid-50s. Learning drives me. My knowledge continues to grow even as my performance in competition is less consistent.

Grigoriev Study

As mentioned in "To Know a Position" yesterday, a 1921 study by Nikolai Grigoriev appears in several books, especially Dvoretsky's Endgame Manual and Alex Fishbein, King and Pawn Endings. However, I did not find the study with that date in Harold van der Heijden, Endgame Study Database VI. Rather, the position is flipped and the date given is 1924. Otherwise, it is the same position.

White to move

White must play precisely to draw.

To Know a Position

Two pawns against one when the stronger side has one that is both passed and protected is generally a win. There are exceptions when the pawns are too close to the edge of the board with one of the pawns (stronger or weaker side) on its starting square. Having a pawn on a rook file also limits the stronger side's chances. The position of the kings often proves critical.

This position, ending no. 107 in Pandolfini's Endgame Course (1988), also arises while playing through examples 8 and 9 in José R. Capablanca, Chess Fundamentals (1921). Josef Kling and Bernhard Horwitz, Chess Studies, or the Endings of Games (1851) presents a study that reaches this position after the first two moves.

White to move

Sacrificing the forward pawn allows White to win Black's pawn after a few moves using opposition and outflanking maneuvers, resulting in a standard position that Bruce Pandolfini covers earlier in the book (endgames 60-62).

The diagram position is important enough in Lev Alburt's view that it appears in Chess Training Pocket Book: 300 Most Important Positions and Ideas (1997). Alburt writes that to become a strong tournament player one needs to know only 12 key pawn endings, promising that the right 12 are in the book (9). A similar position appears in Rashid Ziyatdinov, GM-RAM: Essential Grandmaster Knowledge (2000), but did not make the cut for Thomas Engqvist, 300 Most Important Chess Positions (2018).

Lest there be any doubt about the practical value of understanding how White should play, consider the ending from Polgar,I.--Ciocaltea,V., Baja 1971, which is presented in C.G. Van Perlo, Van Perlo's Endgame Tactics, new, improved and expanded edition (2014).

White to move

54.Kg3

54.Kg5 fails to make progress, Van Perlo notes.

54...Kf7 55.Kf3 Ke7 56.Ke3 Kd7 57.Ke4 Ke6

White to move

Flip the side to move, remove White's f-pawn and place a Black pawn on f6, and the position is identical to one that appeared at the Spokane Chess Club in April 2005 between two of the group's strongest players. Black pushed the unopposed pawn and the game was dead drawn, yet the game continued for many moves more because the weaker side has very little time left on the clock.

58.g5!

"Depriving the black king of some vital squares in the tempo battle" (Van Perlo 25).

58...Kd6 59.f5 Ke7 60.f6+

Now White has a passed pawn.

60...Kf7 61.Ke5 Kf8

We have reached the position at the top of this post.

62.f7

Black resigned.

We can move the initial position right or left, up or down. In most cases, the stronger side has an easy win.  Sacrifice of the forward pawn is the easiest method when the blocked pawn is on the fifth rank, but this fails when the pawn is further back.

Two key positions are analyzed in Johann Berger, Theorie und Praxis der Endspiele (1890), referencing the earlier work of George Walker, A New Treatise on Chess (1841).

No. 483

Das Spiel ist leicht zu gewinnen

It is an easy win, regardless of who has the move, Berger explains.

No. 484

Weiss gewinnt nur mit dem Zuge.

White wins only with the move.

Mark Dvoretsky, Dvoretsky's Endgame Manual, 5th ed. (2020) offers one full page of analysis with one winning and two drawing positions, plus a well-known 1921 study by Nikolai Grigoriev earlier in the chapter. Grigoriev's study, "underscore[s] that a system of corresponding squares certainly does not have to always be 'straight line', as with the opposition. Each case demands concrete analysis" (23). Alex Fishbein, King and Pawn Endings (1993) offers two positions, both of which are Grigoriev compositions. Reuben Fine, Basic Chess Endings (1941) has seven diagrams over a little more than three pages. Karsten Müller and Frank Lamprecht, Fundamental Chess Endings (2001) offer two positions from games, one winning and one drawing. Comparable positions do not appear in Jeremy Silman, Silman's Complete Endgame Course (2007), unfortunately.

Paul Keres, Practical Chess Endings (1974) offers the most thorough discussion with 11 diagrams over six pages. He begins with Berger's no. 483 (see above).

After nine moves in Keres' analysis, the following position is reached.

White to move

"White would spoil everything with 10.b6?" Keres notes (34).

10.Kd5! Kc7 11.Ke6 Kb6 12.Kd6

This outflanking idea is another standard technique.

12...Kb7 13.Kc5

Keres then turns to the most important technique for endgame book authors: shifting the position. Shift everything up on rank and White can no longer win because of the same stalemate threat noted after 10.b6? Shift one square down, and White still wins. Two squares down and it matters who has the move. White must have the move to win.

Moving the position one file to the right and one rank up, White wins, even when Black has the move.

Black to move

1...Kd6 2.Ke4 Ke6 3.Kf4 Kd6 4.Kf5 Kc7 5.Ke6 Kc8

White to move

6.c7!

The pawn must be sacrificed, as we should know from Capablanca and Pandolfini.

Continuing the shift to the right and this time down a rank, Keres sets the kings in a manner optimal for Black. After a few moves, the following position is reached.

White to move

To secure the win, White must use threats of moving to either side of the mass of pawns to perform the opposition and outflanking maneuvers.

6.Kc1!

Working out the rest is good training. Keres book is helpful, too. It was when I reached this position in my reading yesterday morning that I started playing against Stockfish from this position and then many other variations with the same arrangement of pawns across the range of possibilities.

Shift the starting position one rank down and this resource no longer exists for White.

Knowing a position well is knowing an arrangement of pieces that may be, in fact, many hundreds of possible positions. Some of these have arisen in my games in the past and can be expected to do so again. 

Corresponding Squares

When I was studying a position from Paul Keres, Practical Chess Endings, trans. John Littlewood (1974) this morning, it was familiar. I thought the winning idea was rooted in understanding corresponding squares, especially because Keres placed it in that section of the book (he uses the term "related squares"). Nonetheless, I struggled to calculate the solution without working out all critical cases of correspondence, and only through trial and error against Stockfish did I discover the correspondence between a5 (Black) and d2 (White), highlighted in red below.

White to move

I solved the exercise before reading Keres' solution and discussion of related squares, but could not avoid seeing the paragraph below the diagram: "White's task is made extremely difficult by the fact that his passed pawn is on the rook's file and that he has no manoeuvring space for his king to the left of this pawn" (28). Hence, the general idea was clear from the outset if I did not already know that.

Initially, I thought triangulation would allow me to reach the same position, but with Black to move, calculating 1.Ka3 Kb6 2.Kb2 (distant opposition). But if Black plays 1...Ka6, do I still go to b2? This scenario did not occur in my play against Stockfish. Keres notes, as I learned later, that when the Black king is on a6 or b6, White's king can move to c1, c2, or c3 because all three squares allow Kd2 should Black play Ka5.

My play against Stockfish on the iPad follows.

1.Ka3 Kb6 2.Kb2 Ka5 3.Kb3

Already, I have successfully reached the diagram position above with Black to move.

3...Kb6 4.Kc3 Ka5

White to move

An advantage of playing against the computer is that you can learn immediately when you have gone astray. If the engine suddenly shows an evaluation of 0.00, it is clear that an error has been made. Here, 5.Kd3 seems tempting because after 5...Kb4, White has the resource 6.a3. However, it takes little calculation to see that 7.Ke5 fails because Black has 7...Kb3 8.Kd5 Kb4 and suddenly Black is winning.

I may have tried it anyway, but I do recall that I tried 5.Kc2 and watched the evaluation hit 0.00. What then? Going back to the b-file clearly makes no progress. Hence, there is only one move and I would have found it sooner had I more thoroughly considered all sets of corresponding squares instead of trying to see everything through brute force calculation.

5.Kd2! Kb6 6.Ke3

6.Kd3 is as good. Both squares lead to e4.

6...Kc6 7.Ke4

Tablebases indicate that 7.a3 and 7.Kf4 are both equally good, but taking the opposition in such positions is practically routine.

Black to move

7...Kd6 8.Kf5

This simple outflanking maneuver is not superior to 8.a3. However, it is easier to understand. I am reminded of Vladimir Kramnik's words in the Foreword to the 5th edition of Dvoretsky's Endgame Manual (2020): "it is impossible to attain real endgame mastery by just working with a computer. An explanation of why an endgame is winning, ... described in words and in language that a person understands (as opposed to computer variations), is needed" (12).

8...Kd7 9.Ke5 Kc6 10.Ke6

Continuing with moves that alternate between taking the opposition and outflanking is relatively simple and something I've done hundreds of times. Nevertheless, I spent a fair amount of additional time with this exercise after completing it. 

From the starting position, Stockfish notes that it is checkmate in 26 moves. My first effort following the discovery of 5.Kd2 led to checkmate with two queens on the 28th move. I knew that I could do better.

Where else have I seen this position?

I thought that the diagram Keres presents was familiar, but do not find it in Dvoretsky's Endgame Manual. Dvoretsky does have a similar position as a diagram that reaches a nearly identical position after three plies. it is a variation stemming from inaccurate play from a composition by Franz Sackmann (1913).

Black to move

After 10...Kb7 11.Kb4 Ka6, the position in the diagram from Keres is reached one square up the board. The solution follows the same process. Dvoretsky discusses it in the section on mined squares, noting that the d4 square is mined.

Perhaps this derivative from Sackmann's study was sufficiently lodged in my memory to recognize it, especially if I played out Dvoretsky's analysis.

I did find the original position in Alex Fishbein, King and Pawn Endings (1993), where it is no. 126 and credited to George Walker. However, I bought this book with unrealized intentions and have spent very little time studying it. Walker, A New Treatise on Chess (1841) has the position, which Walker states came up in a game that he observed. It is interesting that in Walker, the position is reached with black to move, but White did not know how to play it. Nor did Walker find the correct way. According to Johann Berger, Theorie und Praxis der Endspiele (1890), it was Josef Kling who pointed out the correct manner of play.

From Walker, A New Treatise on Chess

Walker's line follows.

White to move

1.Ka3 Kb6 2.Kb2 Ka5 3.Kb3

Here, we have the diagram at the top of this post, but with Black to move. It is the position I had to produce via triangulation.

3...Ka6 4.Kc3 Ka5 5.a3?

Walker does not give this move the question mark, I do. My memory fades on whether this was one of my errors this morning. I know I certainly considered it.

5...Ka4 6.Kd3 Kxa3 7.Ke4

Can we call this an example if hope chess? Even if Black plays 7...Ka4, the best White gets is a draw.

Black to move

7...Kb3

Now, White must fight for a draw. To Walker's credit (and the player of the White pieces), the drawing method is demonstrated.

8.Kd3

"Best", according to Walker. These days, the move gets a box--only move.

8...Kb4 9.Kd2 Kxc4 10.Kc2 

White draws by holding the opposition, as noted by Walker.