1 0.3 ROOK AND PAWN AGAINST ROO K AND PAWN
Although these endings are usually drawn, even in such simple positions there are many subtleties, and so some theoretical positions and typical methods of play are best known. In the majority of cases the game trans
poses into either a rook and pawn vs. rook, or a rook vs. pawn ending.
458
Taimanov - Estevez Brno, 1 975
=
458. Sometimes, instead of passive defense, it is better to give up a pawn, thus reaching a theoretically drawn position (that is why a firm knowledge of typical positions is needed ! )
1 .
�h6
Ir:f61 The only move. 1 . . . Ha6 2.g5+-
2. lia4 g5?
Black should have sacrificed the pawn in another way:2 .. . 00! 3. «tth7 (3. Ila7 «ttg8=) 3 . . . llf1 4 . Ila7 «ttf6 5. Ha6 00! 6 . !lg6 llh1 7. Hh6 !lg 1 8. !lh4 �8 9.
«tth6 «ttg8 1 0. g5 Ila1 = 3.
�g5
Now White is winning. 3 • . .lif1
[3 .. . Hb6 4.Ilf4+-J
4. lia7 �8 5. �g6 lif2 6.
g5 lib2 7. liaS �e7 8. �g7 lif2 9.
g6 lif1 1 0. �g8 lig1 1 1 . g7 lig2 1 2. lif8
Black resigned.459. 1
. • .lia6?
Senseless, since the f6-pawn is lost in any case. A draw could have been obtained by 1 . . . «ttf8! 2. H b6 Hf4! 3. «ttf6 «ttg8Taimanov - Mueller Varna, 1 975
459
... =4. H b8 «tth7, transferring the king to the short side.
2. �g71 lic6
3.lib8 �e7 4. lib1 lia6 5. lie1
�d8 6. �+- �d7 7. lid1 �c7 8.
�e7
fol lowed by9. lid7
and1 0. lid6.
Black resigned .I n the following example White managed to exploit the bad posi
tioning of Black's pieces.
460. 1 . �6 �ga
[ 1 . . . «tte8 2.e6+-J 2. !ig4! «ttf8 3. ila4! [3 . ilg7? lieS=] 3
. . . lidS?
No better is 3 . . . «tte8 4. lla8 «ttd7 5 . .tla7 +-;a draw could have been obtained by 3 . . . «ttg8! 4. Ha8 «tth7 5. Hf8!
Ild 1 6 . !1f7 «ttg8 7. !1a7 !if1 8.
«tte6 He 1 ! (8 .. . Ll b 1 ? 9. «tte7 «ttg7 1 0. e6 Ll b8 1 1 . «ttd6! +-)
4. lia7?
A mistake in response. Winning is 4 . .tl h4! «ttg8 5. «tte7 nds 6. !lg4«tth7 7. «ttf7+-
4 . . . lib8?
[4 . . .Free ebooks ==> www.Ebook777.com
60
Kirov - Koshic Novi Sad, 1 992
460 6.
c;!?g8=]
s. 1If7 �g8 6. lig7 �8 7.e6 1Ib6 8. 1Ia7 1Ib8 9. 1Ih7
�g8 1 0. lig7
Black resigned . Foreseeing the ending with pawn against rook, Black must play accurately.
46 1
Alekhin - Bogoljubow Gennany, 1 929
=
ROOK ENDINGS
461 . 1 ... �?
The ending with pawn against rook is unavoidable, and so Black should have prepared for it. A draw could have been achieved by 1 . . . c;!?e4! , for example:2. b7 f5 3. b8\'!Y !lb8 4. !lb8 f4 5.
c;!?cs f3 6. n f8 c;!?e3 7. c;!?c4 f2 8. c;!?c3 'i!?e2 9. Ilea c;!?d 1 =
2. b7 f5 3.
b81i'1Ib8 4. 1Ib8 f4 s. �s
fJ6.
�f2 7. 1If8 �g3 8.
� Black resigned.Konstantinopolski - Fridman 1 940
462 6.
+-462. 1 . 1Ic21
Cutting off the black king from the a-pawn Only a draw results from 1 . f7 llf7 2. c;!?f7 c;!?c4=1 .. . �e6
[ 1 . . . a3 2. f7 !lf7 3. c;!?f7 followed by lla2+-]2. lic3!
Bad is 2. f7? !lf7 3 . !le2 c;!?dS 4. c;!?f7 c;!?c4 with a draw.2 .. . a3 3. f7 Ilf7 4. 1Ie3 �d5 S.
�a2 6. Ila3
Black resigned .
We have examined the transition to rook and pawn vs. rook and rook vs.
pawn endings. Besides, some interesting tactical and strategic ideas occur in rook and pawn vs. rook and pawn endings. One of them is demonstra ted in this famous study by Emanuel Lasker.
463.
The winning plan is to drive�a8 1Ic2 3. Ilh6 �aS 4. �b7
the black king onto a2 or b2, after
lib2 5. �a7 1Ic2 6. lihS �a4 7.
which ll h2 decides. This goal is
�b7 lib2 8. �a6 1Ic2 9. 1Ih4
achieved by force. 1 .
�b8 Ilb2 2. �a3
1 0.�b6
Th reate n i n g 1 1 .�a8 1Ic2 3. 1Ih6 �as 4. �b7
il h 2 . 1 0. . . lib2 1 1 . �as 1Ic2
www.Ebook777.com
ROOK AND PAWN AGAINST ROOK AND PAWN
Lasker 1 890
463
b.+-1 2. lih3 �a2 +-1 3. lih2,
and White wins. Lasker's idea was developed in chess composition , as well as in practice.The idea is the same, but the solution is more complicated .
Kopaev 1 95 1
464
b.+-464. 1 . lif5 'i!?a4
The best retreat.2. liaS! �b4 3. lih5 lid3 4. q;c7 lic3 5. 'i!?b6
If White had not given check on the 2nd move, then Black would have drawn by .!lb3 .5 .. . lid3 6. lih4 'i!?a3 7. 'i!?c7 ilc3 8. 'i!?d81
A by-pass. White needs to reach a5 with his king , but right off this is impossible: 8. «!tb6 l'ib3.8 .. . lic2 9. q;e7 lie2 1 0.
6 1
'i!?d6 lid2 1 1 . �c6 lic2 1 2. 'i!?b5 lib2 1 3. 'i!?a5 lid2 1 4. lih3 'i!?a2 1 5. lih2,
and White wins.Jansa - Geller .Moscow, 1 970
465
A465. 1 . . . lig4 2. �h8 lif4 3. lies 'i!?h5 4. �g7 lig4 5. 'i!?h7 lif4 6.
lieS �h4 7. �g7 lig4 8.
�lif4 9. 'i!?e6 lie4 1 0. �5.
and Black resigned in view of the following line:1 0 ... lie2 1 1 . 'i!?g6 lig2 1 2.
'i!?h6 lif2 1 3. lic4 'i!?h3 1 4. 'i!?g6 lig2 1 5. �h5 ilf2 1 6. lic3
followed by
Hc2+-The following origi nal study develops Lasker's theme.
Kalandadzc 1 970
466
b.+-466. 1 . d7 lid3 2. �c7 lic3 3.
q;d6 lid3 4. 'i!?e7 lie3 5.
00lid3
62
6. Ila5 �g4 7. �e7 Ile3 8. �6 Ild3 9. Ila4 �h5
Otherwise White plays 1 0. !la3+-1 0. �e6 Ile3 1 1 .
�5 Ild3
[ 1 1 . . . Hf3 1 2. <i!'?e4+-]1 2. Ila3! Ild7 1 3. Ilh3
Mate An u nexpected finale! The last examples demonstrate the perfect coor
dination of king and rook which is one's desired g oal in the rook endgame.
Keres 1 947
467
D..+-467.
Study by Paul Keres. White's plan is to transfer the rook to the 2nd ran k fol lowed by H d2 and<i!'?d7. But first he advances his pawn to e7.
1 . �e8 �g6 2. e7 �h5
Black tries not to allow the white rook to get to the 2nd rank. If 2 . . .
<i!'?h7, then 3 . Ha3 <i!'?g7 4. Hg3
<i!'?h7 5. !lg2 <i!'?h8 6. i!d2 <i!'?g7 7.
<i!'?d7 +-
3. Ila3!
By putti ng his opponent in zugzwang White forces the black king to move onto the gfile, after which Lasker's idea does work.
3 ... �h4 4. Ila5 �g4
Or 4 . . .<i!'?h3 5 . Ha4! , and B lack i s i n zugzwang .
5.
�Ilf1 6 . �g6 Ile1 7. Ila4 �h3 8.
�Ilf1 9. �g5 Ilg1 1 0. �h5 Ile1 1 1 . Ila3 �g2 1 2. Ila2
�1 3. Ila7 Ile6!
( 1 4.<i!'?g6 was threatened )
1 4. �g5
ROOK ENDINGS
�e4 1 5. Ilc7
or 1 5. Hb7; but not 1 5. Hd7 <i!'?e5, and it is White who is in zugzwang .15 .
.. �eS 1 6. Ild71
�e4 1 7. Ild 1 ! �3 1 8. Ilf1 �e2 1 9. Ilf7 �e3 20.
"· and White wins.The idea of the rook's transferring to the 2nd (7th) rank is often seen in practice.
Panchenko - Melnikov 1 985
468
D..468. 1 . Ila31 Ile1 2. Ilb3 e2 3.
Ilb2!
Black resigned.Zaitsev I. - Dvoretzky
· Moscow, 1 973
469 D..
469. 1 . chg4
Black threatened lla6-g6 (h6) - Iig7 (h7)-+1 ...
Ila4 2. �h5 Ila6
Zugzwang . If now 3 . <i!'?g5, then 3 . . . <i!'?f2, andROOK AND PAWN AGAINST ROOK AND PAWN 63 Black wins "a Ia Keres".
3. 'ifilg4
A similar idea works also withl'lg6 4. ci>f5 l'lg7 5.
ci>t6l'lh7 6.
alarger number of pawns on the'ifile6 l'lb7 7. 'ifile5 l'le7 8. 'ifild6
board .'ifild1 9. 'ifile7 e11!f,
and Black went on to win .1 0.3 1 "Hide-away"
Sometimes the stronger side's king can hide in the "shadow" of an opponent's pawn (pawns).
Kotov - Eliskases Stockholm, 1 952
470
•+-470. 1 . . . l'lf2 2. 'ifile6 l'le2 3. ci>f5 g4
The black g-pawn covers the white king from checks from the rear. If there were no g-pawn here, Black would have had an easy draw.4. 'i!;lg61 l'lf2 5. f7 ci>f8 6.
l'lb8 'ifile7 7. l'le8
Black resigned . In this position Back could have won by hiding his king in the "shadow" of the g-pawn .
471 . 1 . . . ci>f41
In the game Black played 1 . . . <t>h4?, and after 2. ilf1 ! Ilg3 (or 2 . . . c;!;>g3 3. ilg 1 <t>f2 4.lla1 ilg4 5. ila2 c;!;>g3 6. c;!;>g 1 llb4 7 . ilg2=) 3 . g 5 h e was forced to capture the g-pawn , which led to a draw: 3 . . . c;!;>g5 4. lla1 c;!;>g4 5.
!la4 c;!;>g5 6. !Ia1 c;!;>g4 7. !Ia4 ct>g5 8 . .Has <t>h4 9. llf5 il h3 1 0.
<t>g 1 <t>g3 1 1 . ilf8 ilh4 1 2. !lg8
Schmidt - Plachetka Decin, 1 976
471
• -+Draw.
2. l'lg1
No better is 2. g5 c;!;>g3 3 . ilg 1 <t>f2! 4. ila 1 ilg4 5.ila2 c;!;>g3 6. c;!;>g 1 (6. g6 il b4 7.
ila 1 il h4 8 . c;!;>g 1 f2-+) 6 . . . il b4 7.
ila 1 il b2 8. g6 Ilg2 9. <t>f 1 ilh2-+; o r 2 . ilf 1 Iie2 3 . g5 c;!;>g3
472
Schlechter - Perlis Karlovy Vary, 1 9 1 1
+-64
4. !lg 1 (4. g6 !l h2 5. �g 1 f2 6.
llf2 llf2 7. g7 ll g 2 8 . �h 1
�f3-+) 4 . . . �h3 5 . llf1 f2 fol-lowed by 6 . . . !le 1 -+
2 .. . Ile2 3.
Ilf1
[3. g5 f2 4. llf1 �g3 5. g6!le1 -+]
3 .. . �g3,
and Black wins.The device of hiding in the "shadow"
ROOK ENDINGS
often occurs in rook endings.
472. 1 .
e5
1 fe The alternatives are no better, for example: 1 . . . lle5 2.�c6+-; 1 . . . !ld2 2. �e6 �c8 3 . d7! +-