Bishop Endings

Yuri Averbakh
Bishop Endings is the fourth volume to appear of
Averbakh’s ^^reat classic series ou the endgame.
The original Russian edition ciuickly established
a world-wide rcj^utation these are the endgame
books that Fischer had sent to him during his
world championship match.
"Fhe English translation has been updated and
is by far the most complete work on bishop
endgames ever published. Every one of the 370
examples has its own diagram.
In both matches and tournaments, games arc
often adjourned at the moment that the ending is

reached. It is then that any player without the

most authoritative work to refer to puts himself at
a great disadvantage and is in danger of throwing
away both half'and whole points. Bishop Endings
can help to solve a player’s adjournment
problems - 370 diagrams, in conjunction with
the detailed contents list, make it easy for the
reader to find any particular t\'pe of position.
Wiri Averbakh is President of the So\ iet Che.ss

Eedcration and an International Grandmaster.

Mary Eashcr, the translator, also translated
Pawn Endings.

1 76 pages
370 diagrams

A BATSFORD CHESS BOOK

X;4-95
net
Bishop Ending
Other titles in this series:

Bishop Knight Endings

V.

Pawn Endings
Queen and Pawn Endings
CONTEMPORARY CHESS ENDINGS

Bishop Endings

YURI AVERBAKH

Translated by Mary Lasher

B. T. Batsford Limited London

First published in the USSR
English translation © B. T. Batsford Ltd., 1977
ISBN 0 7134 0096 X

Set by Willmer Brothers Limited, Birkenhead

Printed in Great Britain by
Billing & Sons Ltd.,
London, Guildford & Worcester
for the publishers
B. T. Batsford Limited
4 Fitzhardinge Street, London WlH OAH

BATSFORD CHESS BOOKS

Adviser: R. G. Wade
Editor: K. J. O’Connell
CONTENTS

Translator’s preface vii

Editor’s preface viii

BISHOP V. PAWNS
1 Bishop V. pawn 1

2 Bishop V. two pawns 2

Doubled pawns 2
Connected pawns 3
Isolated pawns 6
3 Bishop V. three or more pawns 10
Connected pawns 10
Isolated pawns 16
4 Bishop and pawn v. lone king 19
5 Bishop and pawn v. pawn 21

6 Bishop and pawn v. two pawns 31

7 Bishop and pawn v. three pawns 44

8 Endgames with many pawns 52

BISHOPS OF THE SAME COLOUR

9 Bishop and pawn v. bishop 55
Centrepawn 7j
Bishop pawn 72
Knight pawn 73
Rook pawn 75
10 Bishop and two pawns v. bishop 77
Connected pawns 77
Doubled pawns 78
Isolated pawns 79
11 Bishop and pawn v. bishop and pawn 82
12 Bishop and two pawns v. bishop and pawn 86
Connected passed pawns 86
Connected pawns, one passed 87
Connected pawns, none passed 89
Isolated passed pawns 91
Isolated pawns, one passed 91
13 Endgames with many pawns 99
Realizing a pawn advantage 99
Positional advantage 107
a Passed pawns 107
 1

b Defending pawns and bishop on same colour squares 115

c Better king position 122

BISHOPS OF OPPOSITE COLOUR

14 Bishop and pawn v. bishop 124
15 Bishop and two pawns v. bishop 125
Doubled pawns 125
Connected pawns 126
a Both pawns on the sixth rank 1 26
b One pawn on the sixth rank and one ori the fifth 127
c Both pawns on the fifth rank 128
d One pawn on the fifth rank and one on the fourth 1 30
e Both pawns on the fourth rank 1 3

Isolated pawns 133

16 Bishop and three pawns v. bishop 137
17 Endgames with pawns on both sides 140
Index of players, composers and analysts 164
EDITOR’S PREFACE

Several changes have been made from the original Russian edition. These are:
1 The examples have been renumbered to eliminate the many instances of ‘a’ and
‘b’ numbers.
2 This volume has been updated with many additional examples. T. D. Harding
was primarily responsible for the research which this has required. Dr K. P.
Neat has been responsible for merging this new material into the text.
3 The additional material has resulted in the following changes:
a) New examples: 8,21, 39, 62, 82, 83, 84, 85, 86, 87, 91 , 1 15, 1 33, 1 34, 140, 145,
151, 154, 155, 156, 205, 245, 247, 260, 266, 274, 275, 278, 279, 280, 309, 310, 312,

314, 324, 329, 330-342, 346, 347, 348, 349, 356, 357, 361, 362.
b) Modifications to examples originally in the Russian edition: 31, 38, 243.
c) Modifications (as b), but made by the translator: 161, 352, 364.
4 The number of diagrams has been increased by 181 to 370.
5 An index of names of players, composers and analysts has also been included.
Kevin J. O’Connell
London, May 1976
Translator’s Preface

Bishop Endgames comprises part of the second tome in Averbakh’s original three
volume work on the endgame. With unembellished analysis the Russian
Grandmaster presents the graphics of bishop endings.
David Hooper’s symbol innovation: + for win, = for draw, — for loss, + / = for
White to move wins and Black to move draws, etc., again has been employed.
The translator wishes to thank the following people for their kind support and
assistance: International Master John Grefe and International Master Julio
Kaplan who proofread the original manuscript; R. R. S. who contributed many
improvements and corrections to the second draft; Earl P. Lasher III and Kristin
Johnsen Lasher; Judy Lasher Foster and Dr. George L. Foster.
Mary Lasher
Seattle, July 1974
Part I: Bishop v. Pawns

1 BISHOP V. PAWN

Being a long-range piece, the bishop by

itself can restrain a distant pawn by
controlling the square in front of it.

The side with the pawn wins only in

two exceptional cases:

1) If either king interferes with the

bishop’s control over the pawn;
2) If the pawn passes through a
potential blockading square before the
bishop can attack it.

J. Allgier 1975

elementary, if at times precise,

technique.
3 : Thus, after 1K-R6, only 1 . . .

B-K5! draws. 2 P-N7 K-B2.

The first example presents a famous

endgame study by Otten.
1 After
: K-K4! B-R5 2 K-B3!,
1

Black cannot stop the pawn.

2 : Black wins with 1 . . . P-Qj5+ 2 K-
moves P-Q?.
Generally, drawing requires Horwitz and Kling 1853
2 BISHOP V. TWO PAWNS

This endgame normally produces a draw. Our analysis will cover three distinct
pawn configurations.

1 DOUBLED PAWNS
When do not co-
the king and bishop harmless. The next study illustrates this
ordinate, the doubled pawns win by point:.
forcing a bishop sacrifice for one pawn,
bringing about a won king and pawn
ending.

G. Nadareishvili 1951

Y. Averbakh 1954 5: With accurate play White draws: 1

B-B4! B-Ml? K-B5 2 K-N7 K-K6 3

{1
4: Here, for example. White plays 1 K-B6K-Q74 K-K5 K-B85 B-R2 K-m
K-K7 followed by 2 P-B7 and 3 K-Q8, 6 B-moves P-R7, winning) 1 . . . K-B3!
winning easily. Black restrains the white king while
Black to move first, foils this plan and approaching the pawns. 2 B-N8! The
draws with K-B2 2 K-B7 {2 P-B7
1 . . . only move; the bishop saves time by
B-Bl 3 K-B6 K-K3 4 K-M K-Q4 etc.) keeping clear of the black king. 2 . . .

2 . . . K-K3 3 K-Q8 K -Q4. K-K4 3 K-N7 K-Q5 4 K-B6 K-B6 5

Even doubled rook pawns far away K-K5 K-N7 6 K-Q4 P-R7 7 BxP
from the defending king may prove KxB 8 K-B3, draw.
 . ,
Bishop V. Two Pawns 3

2 CONNECTED PAWNS
A bishop supported by the king draws 7; 4 ... B-R6? loses to 5 P-Q7-|-
with relative ease against connected pawns K-Q.1 6 P-B7+ ! KxQP 7 K-N7. Black
on the fifth rank. must respond 4 . . . B-K4 (or 4 . . .

B-Qfi-\- 5 K~N5 B--K4) to draw, 5 K-B5

BxP+ 6KxBK-Ql.
Consequently, a harmonious ar-

rangement of the king and bishop also

produces an elementary draw against
connected pawns on the sixth rank.

Y. Averbakh 1954

6: The simplest draw goes 1 . . .

B-Q5 P-B6 (Black threatened 2

2 .. .

BxP.) 2 ... B-K4.

Black risks nothing, however, by
inviting the white king into QN7: 1 . . .

K-Q2 2 K-N6 B-N7 3 K-N7. Since Y. Averbakh 1972

White threatens 4 P-B6-(- and 5 P-B7, a
waiting manoeuvre becomes in-

appropriate; therefore. Black must

8: The bishop is unfavourably
placed, and cannot intervene im-
continue 3 B-K4, keeping White
. . .

from further strengthening his position.

mediately in the struggle against the

Instead of 3 K-N7, however. White pawns. White threatens to play his king

can play 3 P-B6-|- K-Bl 4 P-Q6. We to K7, which would assure the

now arrive at diagram 7.

promotion of one of his pawns.
What should Black do? 1 . . . K-Ql is

no use on account of 2 P-B7H- K-Bl 3

K-K7 when White wins, as the bishop
remains out of play.
Therefore we must try to activate the

bishop; 1 . . . B-B6 (7 . . . B-Q5 or 1 .. .

B-N7 are also possible.) 2 P-Q74- (In

reply to 2 K-K7 Black has only one
satisfactory continuation -2 .. . B-J^5!,
which holds up the pawns by means of a
pin.) 2 . . . K-Ql! 3 P-B74- KxP 4
K-K7 also leads nowhere after 4 . . .

Y. Averbakh 1954 B-B3+!.

4 Bishop V. Pawns

When the bishop’s king stands K-B5 K-Q2 5 K-Bl 6 P-R7 etc.)
completely out of play, even connected 2 P-R5 (After 2 K^B5 B-KG^ 3 K-BG
pawns on the fourth rank can win. K-Q5 4 P-R5 K-B5 5 P-N5 K-N5 G
P-RG K-R4, Black immobilizes the
pawns.) 2 . . . B-K6! (The bishop seizes
its optimum square.) 3 P-N5 K-K4 4
P_N6 K-Q3 5 K-N5 K-Q.2 6 K-R6
K-B3 (Also playable is 6^ K-BL) 1 . . .

K-R7 B-B7 Draw.

When both kings stand at a distance
from connected pawns on the sixth
rank, the bishop cannot fulfil his

restraining task, e.g.:

9: White triumphs with 1 P-R5!

(Unsatisfactory P-N5? K-QJ 2 is 1

K-K7 K-Q2 3 P-N6 B~R4! 4 K-R6

BxP, draw.) 1 K-Ql 2 P-R6 R-B7. . .

3 K-N7.
Black loses only because he cannot
co-ordinate his forces in time to stop the
white pawns.

11: 1 P-B6! (Insufficient is 1 K-M2?

B-Q^ 2 P-BG B-N3 3 K-B3 K-N2 4
K-K4 K-B35 K-Q^ K-K2, or 1 P-NG?
B-Q^! 2 P-N7 B^K4 3 K-N2 K-N2 4
K-B3 K-B35K-K4 K-K3.) 1 B-K4 . . .

2 P-N6 followed by 3 P-B7, and Black

has no defence.
With the bishop on KB3 and . . .

White beginning P-B6, Black 1

prevents both pawns from reaching the

M. Henneberger (1916?) B—Ql!
sixth rank with 1 . . .

(from a study)
As a rule, a bishop can restrain
connected pawns on the fifth rank.

10: The unfortunate placement of his 12: This illustrates the above maxim.
king notwithstanding, Black manages Only
when the bishop abides
an integrated attack against the pawns. misplaced on QNl, QB8 or KR3 can
1 B-B5! (Black errs with 1
. . . . . . the pawns advance without king
K-K4 2 P-R5 K-K3 3 P-R6 B-Ml 4 support.
 Bishop V. Two Pawns 5

the blocked pawns, threatens to occupy

. . . KB6 in three moves, thus setting up
. . . P-N7. What can White do about
this plan?
1 B-N2! The only move. Now the
forced detour to . . . K7 costs the black
king an extra move. White, meanwhile,
NP in four moves:
attacks the 1 . . .

K-K3 2 K-K8 K-K4 3 K-B7 K-B5 4

K-B6 K-K6 5 K-B5 K-K7 6 K-N4,
draw.
Y. Averbakh 1954 This example depicts some
interesting possibilities surrounding a
Black threatens to queen one of the
bishop V. two connected pawns.
pawns after 1 . . . P-B6 2 B-K4 P-N6.
This critical situation for White
demands, above all, the immobilization
of these pawns.
So, 1 B-Q5! P-B6 2 B-N3 K-K4
(The black king, heading for . . . Q6,
intends . . . P-B7 winning the bishop.)
3 K-K7! (The white king must reach
QB5 in time.) 3 . . . K-Q5 4 K-Q6
K-Q6 5 K-B5 draw.
With on KN8 and
the kings . . .

KN3, respectively. White loses after 1

B-Q5 P-B6 2 B-N3, since the black N. Grigoriev 1927
king reaches . .
. Q6 in three moves; but
QB5 lies four moves away from the
The isolation of the white king
14:
white king.
from Black’s uncontained pawns causes
13: The black king, on hand to aid
White to lose should he bring his king
into play immediately, e.g.:
K-B7 P-K4 2 K-Q6 K-Q5! (2
1 . . .

P-K5? 3 K-K5 P-B6 4 B~B1 P-B7 5

B-N2) 3 B-K6 (If 2 B-R6, then Black
continues 3 .. P-K5 4 K-K6 P-B6 5.

K-B5 P-K6.) 3 P-K5 4 B-N4 P-B6 . . .

5 K-B6 P-B7 6 B-R3 P-K6 7 B-Bl

K-B6! 8 K-Q5 K-Q7, and wins.
The following instructive manoeuvre
produces a draw:
1 pawn must be
B-K6!! The
blockaded. P-B6 2 K-B7 P-B7 3
1 . . .

Horwitz and Kling 1853 B-R3 {3 B-B4? P-K4 4 K-Q6 P-K5 5

6 Bishop V. Pawns

K-K5 K-B6 and 6' . . . P- K6) 3 K-B3.) 4 K-B6! “forced 4 . . . P-K4 5

, , . K-B6! A dangerous move for K-Q5 P-K5 6 K-Q4 P-K6 7 K-Q3
White, as Black threatens to queen the P-K7 White arrives too late, it seems;
KP, (White P-K4 4
replies to 5 . . . but beware of surprises. 8 B-N-ff ! Kx B
K-Q6 K-Q5 with 5 K-K6 P-K5 6 K-B5 9 KxP K-N6 10 K-Bl K-B6
P-K6 7 B-Bl K-B6 8 K-B4 K-Q7 9 stalemate!

3 ISOLATED PAWNS

The defender must strive for the drawn

positions displayed in diagrams 15 and
16 when opposing isolated pawns.

Y. Averbakh 1954

Y. Averbakh 1954

K~N5 P-K6 7 K~R4P^K7.) P-N5 1 . , .

2 K-R6! P-N6 3 K-R5! P-N7 4 B-B5

K-B5 5 K-R4 K-B6 6 K-R3 P-K5 7
K-R2 with a basic draw.
In the example just cited Black failed
Y. Averbakh 1954
to disrupt White’s forces. When more
In both cases Black’s pieces fully co- than two files separate the pawns, the
operate. bishop faces further obstacles to
15: The black king and bishop unite controlling both pawns simultaneously.
in battle against the pawns. Black also In No. 17 the king and bishop share the
draws if his king resides on . . .
QR3, for job, the king marching toward the
1 P-Q6 can be answered 1 . . . BxP. unprotected pawn, while the bishop
16: The king and bishop perform restrains the counterpart.
separate tasks, each piece overseeing a Black utilizes this plan in No. 18 and
different pawn. achieves a draw.
Now observe No. 17. 18: 1 P-N5 K-Q6! Bad is 1 . . . B-Bl
17: White’s king stands away from 2 P-B4 K-Q6 3 K-Q51 - the white king
the pawns. Still, a synchronized prevents the necessary regrouping - 3
arrangement of his pieces yields a draw. . . . K-K6 K-K5 K-B5
{3... B-N2-^ 4
1 K-N7 (Also possible is 1 K-R7, but 5 P-B5 K-B4 6 P-B6 B-Q4 7 P-N6) 4
B-B5 P-N5 2 K-m P-M 3 K-R6
not 1 K-K5, and White wins. Following 2
K-N5! 4 K-M P-K5 5 K-B6 K-B6 6 P-N6 B-Bl the KBP falls.
 Bishop V. Two Pawns 7

Y. Averbakh 1954 R. Red 1922

Or P-B4 K-Q6!
1 2 K-Q5 B-N7+ ! 3 K-Q5! Having distracted the black
K-K5 K-B5! The black king rushes king, White now rushes to the KRP. 3
over to the exposed pawn. 4 P-B5 B-B6 . P-N6 4 K-K4 P-N7 5 B-R2, and
. .

5 P-B6 B-R4. the white pieces stop the pawns.

White loses after K-B6 K-B5 2
1

K-N6 K-N6 3 K-B5 P-R6 4 K-K4

P-R7 as the ,
white king obstructs his
own bishop.

H. Rinck 1935

19: This position differs from the

previous one only in the location of the
bishop. White prevents the black pieces Y. Averbakh 1972
from co-ordinating: P-N5 K-Q6 2
1 (from an analysis by Alekhine, 1934)
K-Q5! K-K6 3 K-K5! The point;
White gains a tempo. 3 . . . B-Bl 4 P-B4 21: Alekhine thought that in this
K-Q6 5 P-B5 K-B5 6 P-B6. position the black king was too far from
20: It appears that White is in the pawns to be of any assistance to the
zugzwang. bishop, but this is not the case. As
However, a draw results precisely Nogovizyn (Ivanovo) has shown, Black
because of the delineated function of his can hold the draw by 1 ... K-K7 2
pieces. P-B4 K-K6 3 P-B5 K-K5 4 P-B6
1 K-Qj6! K-Q5! 2 K-B6! K-B6 3 K-K4 5 P-N5 K-K3!!; e.g. 6 P-N6
8 Bishop V. Pawns

K-Q2 7 K-N5 K-BlH- 8 K-R6 K-Nl. P_N5+! BxF- (J . . . KxP 4 P-R6),

Black succeeds in restoring the White reaches the^endgame covered in
harmony between his pieces. No. 1.

Now let us examine some situations 23: Black’s bishop must struggle
where, for one reason or another, piece alone against the two pawns. With 1

co-ordination becomes impossible, and K-B4! B-Q4 2 K-K5i, the white king
the defending side loses. tempos to K5, after which 2 B-B6 . . .

allows 3 P-R5, promoting a pawn.

H. Otten 1892

22: Black to move draws with 1 . . .

K-K3, for the king watches over the M. Lewitt

QRP while the bishop controls the (end of a study)
KNP, as well as 1 ... K-N3 2 P-R5
B-Bl 3 K-Q5 B-R3 4 P-R6 B-K6,
where the bishop restrains the QjRP. 24: K-B7i (The continuation 1
1

But White to move, by taking K-B6? B-K4! puts White in

advantage of the black king’s poor zugzwang.) 1 ... R-K4-i- 2 K-B6.

location, wins. White places Black in immediate
After 1 P-R5 B-Bl 2 K-Q5 B-R3 3 zugzwang. Any
move along the
bishop
KR1-QR8 diagonal permits 3 P-N7
K-R2 4 K-B7 B-K4f 5 K-B8, etc.

R. Red
(end of a study)
 Bishop V. Two Pawns 9

25: Although his king cannot The example, however, marks an

White to
participate in the struggle, exception.
move detains both pawns with 1 B-K3,
drawing.
Black to move plays 1 . . . P-B5! and
after 2 B-Q4 P-KB6 3 K-B6 P-B6 one
of the pawns queens.
Perusing this chapter, it seems that
the king and bishop must always take
the defensive. This is not absolutely
true.
26'.‘ This position corresponds to a

well-known study by Troitsky. White

wins with 1 K-K6! K—Rl 2 K-B7 and
an inevitable mate.
3 BISHOP V. THREE OR MORE PAWNS

1 CONNECTED PAWNS
Against connected pawns the king and
28
bishop must try to arrange the
following basic drawn positions (Nos.

27, 28, 32).

Y. Averbakh 1954

29
Y. Averbakh 1954
=/+

27: White has the more active pieces.

In attacking Black’s only weakness, the
pawn on . .
. Q4, he ties down the black
king to the defence of the connected
pawns. No matter where we set up this

position, the evaluation remains the

same.
28: The moves K-K4 2 K-B3
1 . . .

K-B4 3 K-Q4 K-K3 bring about Y. Averbakh 1954

position No. 27.
However, with No. 28 moved down K-K2 K-B2)
(or 1 \ K-K5 2
...
one rank, the outcome depends on who B-N2+ K-B5 3 B-Bl K-N6 4 K-Q3
moves first. K-B6 5 B-K2+ K-N7 6 KxP, etc.
29: White to move draws with 1 Black to move commences 1 . . .
 Bishop V. Three or More Pawns 11

K-K5 K-B2 {2 B-N2-T K-Q6 3

2 K-QJ B-B1+ K-Q8
4 5 B-R3
K-B6 4 K-K2 K~B7 5 B^N2 P-B8 = Q4- 6 BxQ, KxB Stalemate.
P-Q^ 6 KxPP-Q7) 2... P-Q&f 3 !

BxP+ {3 K-QJ K-Q^ 3 K-B6 4 . . .

K-Ql K-N7.
Against pawns on the seventh rank,
the king and bishop draw only in corner
positions.

Y. Averbakh 1954

32: Black endeavours to break

through to . . . KN 7 with 1 . . . K-Q4 2
K-K3 K-K4 3 B-Kl K-B4 4 B-Q2
K-N5 5 B-Kl K-R6 6 K^2! (if 6
B-QJ?, then 6 ... K-N7 7 B-Kl P-B7 8
30: After 1 . . . K-N5 2 K-K2 P-BBf Bx P P-Q7, winning) but finds he must
,

3 BxP-j- K-R6 4 K-Bl, the black king retreat.

cannot break through. No. 32 moved down one rank,
however, alters this condition.

31: 1 . . . K-N5 2 K-R6 3

B-Q.2+ White cannot regroup in time to
33:
B-B1+ or 2 . . . K-B5 3 K-N2 K-Q6 4 stop the black king from manoeuvring
B-R6 K-K7 5 B-N5 K-Q8 6 B-B4. toKN8. K-Q5 2 K-K2 K-K5 3
1 . . .

As A. Streltsov has shown B-R3 K-B5 4 B-N2 K-N6 5 B-Bl

{Shakhmatny Bulletin 1962) White can K-R7 6 K-Q\ K-N8, etc.
also draw by playing for stalemate; e.g. 34: It mistakenly appears that the
1 . . .K-N5 2 B-R3Y! K-B6 3 B-N2+ black king cannot reach KR8. After 1
12 Bishop V. Pawns

Y. Averbakh 1954
A. Cheron 1926
B^m K-N5 K-K6 9 KxMP,
K-Q6 8
. K-K5 2 B-R2 K-B4 3 K-B2 K-N5
. .

besides the simpler 4 K-R4 K-K4 5

4 B-N K-R6 5 K-Kl K-N6, however,
1
K-N5 P-B5 6 KxP, etc.) 3 K-B4
Black places White in zugzwang and
p_N4f 4 K-N3 K-K4 5 B-R5 K-K5 6
seizes KR8 for his own king.
B-B3+ K-K6 7 B-R5 P-BSf 8 K-N2,
securing a primary drawn position.
35 A waiting manoeuvre usually makes
up White’s defence.
But what happens when we move this
position down one rank? (Diagram No.
37).

White draws only in this corner

35:
position where Black cannot effect a
bypass. Curiously, switching the white
king and bishop around does not alter
the result: 1 . . . K-Q7 2 K-N2 K-K8 3
K-Rl K xB, stalemate. Y. Averbakh 1954
Knowing the primary drawn 37: Suppose that White continues as
positions beforehand eases orientation in No. 36.
in the following examples. 1 B-Kl P-B5
Let us first examine a situation with 2 P-R5
B-B2
connected pawns on the third rank. If 2 K-B4, then 3 K-B3 P-N^ 4
. . .

B-K2 P-B4 (7
36: 1 K-B4 2 . . . K-N2 K-K5 5 B-R4 K-K6 6 B-B2+
B-Q^) 2 B-B3 K-B3 (If 2 P-R4 3 . . . K-K7 7 B-R4 P-Bbf 8 K-Nl, draw.
B-QJ K-B3, then White has 4 B-K2 3 B-Kl? K-B4
K-K4 5 B-B3 K-Q5 6 K-B4 P-R5 7 Incorrect is 3 . . . P-B6-|- 4 K-Nl!!
 Bishop V. Three or More Pawns 13

(The only move! If 4 K-B2 P-R6 5

K-Nl K-B5 6 B-Q^-\- K~B4, the drawn
position eludes White, e.g., 7 B-R5
K-K5! 8 B- B7 K-K69 K-Bl P-B7! 10
B^N6+ K~B6 11 BxP P-R7.) 4 . . .

K-B4 (4 K-B5 5 K-B4 6

. . .

B-R5) 5 B-R5 P-N5 6 B-Q8 P-R6 {6

. .P-M 7 BxP K-B5 8 K-Bl! K-N5
.

9 BxP) 1 B-B7 K-K5 8 K-B2, and

White achieves a primary drawn
position.
4 B-B2 38: The position with pawns on the
The active 4 K-R3 K-K5 5 K-N4 fifth rank was originally thought to be
K-K6 6 B-R5 P-B6, etc., does not won for Black. Averbakh (1954) gives
work. B-N5 P-B6 2
the following variation: 1

4 . . . K-K5 B-Q7 K-B5 3 B-K6 P-N6 4 B-Q7

B-Kl K-K6 6 B-B2+ K-K7 7
5 K-K6 5 B-K6 K-K7 6 B-N4 P-N7 7
B-B5 P-B6-t- 8 K-N P-R6, and Black 1 B-R5 P-R6 8 B-N4 P-R7+ 9 KxP
wins. K-B7.
Thus, manoeuvre
the bypassing But as A. Streltsov has shown
remains a threat so long as the pawns [Shakhmatny Bulletin 1962), White’s 6th
and the bishop occupy identically move is a serious mistake. By playing 6
coloured squares. Can White perhaps B-R31 he can reach a position similar to
attack the pawns and impede the No. 31, and draw, e.g. 6 K-K8 7 . . .

bypass? This he attempts on the fourth B-Bl P-B7+ 8 K-Rll, or 7 P-R6 8 . . .

move. BxP P-B7+ 9 K-Rl P-B8=Q4^ 10

B-R5 P-N5 [4. .. K-K55B-Q8) 5
4 BxQ. K xB. Stalemate. It should be
B-Q8 P-Rbf 6 K-R2 [6 K-B2 P-N&^ added that White’s 4th and 5th moves
7 K-B3 P-R7 8 K-N2 K-N5 9 B-M are also inaccurate. By playing 4 B-R3
P-B6^ 10 K-Rl K-R6, or 9 B-B7 he can quickly force a draw.
P-B6+ 10 K-Rl P-B7) 6 K-K5 7 . . . Let us^ see whether Black’s play can
B-N6 K-B6 8 B-B7 K-K6 9 B-Nbf be improved. After 1 B-N5 P-B6 2
K-K7 10 B-B5 P-B6 11 K-Nl P-B7+ B-Q7 K-B5 3 B-K6, instead of 3 . . ,

12 BxP P-R7+, and Black wins. P-N6, Black can continue 3 P-R6. . . .

If White tries this active defence one Then White draws by 4 B-Q7, e.g, 4
move earlier, however. Black cannot . . . K-N6 5 B-K6 P-B7-h (5 . . .

win. P-R7y- transposes into a position

P-R5, White draws if his
After 2 . . .
considered below) 6 K-Bl P-R7 7
bishop attacks the KN and KR pawns B-Q5, or 5 . . . K-R5 6 B-Q5(Q.7); if

immediately: 3 B-N6! K-B4 {3 .. .

4 K-K6, then 5 BxP P-B7-|- 6
. . .

P-B6+ 4 K-B2 K-R6 5 KxP P-N5+ 6 K-Bl P-R7 7 B-B3! KxB. Stalemate.
K-B2 K~R7 7 B-B7+ P-N&4- 8 K-B3 It remains to consider the following
K-R69 B-M P-N7 10 B-Nl) 4 B-Q8!, plan: 1 B-N5 P-R6 2 B-0.7 P-R7+ 3
and Black has nothing further. K-Rl P-B6. Now White loses after
14 Bishop V. Pawns4

either 4 BxP KxB 5 KxP K-B5 6 K-K6 7 KxP P-B5-h 8 K-N2 P-B6+ 9
K-Nl K-K6, or 4 B-B6, e.g. 4 . . . K-Bl, with a draw.
K-B7 5 B-N7 K-K8 6 B-R6 P-N6 7 B-N5!
B-N7 P-N7+ 8 KxP K-B7, or 6 B-B6 4 P-B5 was threatened, so the
. . .

P-B7 7 B-N5 P-B8=Q,+8 BxQ.KxB bishop moves to a position from where

9 KxPK-B7. White draws by 4 it can prevent the further advance of
B-K6(B8), answering 4 P-B7 with . . . the BP.
6
5 B-B4(R6). 4 . . . K-N4
Now 4 P-B5 promises nothing
. . .

after 5 B— K2 K-N4 6 B—Ql K-B4 7

B-K2 P-N6 8 K-B3 K-K4 9 B-Bl
K-Q5 10 K-K2 with an impregnable
position.
5 B-Q.3 K-B5
6 B-K2
The simplest solution, but also after 6
B-N5 K-K5 7 B-Q7! Black can make
no progress.
. .K-N3 K-K5 8 B-Bl
. K-K4 7
P-B5+ 9 KxP P-B6 10 K-N3 P-K7 11
Y. Averbakh 1972
Can Black, to move, win?
BxP PxB 12 K-B2 K-Q6 13 K-Kl
K-K6. Stalemate.
39: Berger, and after him Cheron, Subtle details gathered from similar
thought that this position was won for endgames help to demystify position
Black, but this is incorrect. White can No. 40. (The game Sozin-Botvinnik,
maintain the balance as follows: 1929, reached this position, but with a
1 . . K-N4
. pawn on QR5 and a black pawn
white
1 . . . K-K4 leads nowhere after 2 on QR3. Botvinnik discovered the
B-B8. winning idea.)
B-B6
2 K-R5!
The pawns are ready to advance,
and White is in no position to prevent
this. However, the struggle is not yet

over, and White finds salvation in basic

drawing positions.
3 K-N2
The enemy king cannot be allowed
to advance further.
3 . . . P-K6
The strongest. White has less
difficulties after 3 . . P-N6, e.g. 4
.

B-Q5 K-N5 (or ^ . P-K6 5 B~B3

. . 40: White to move loses quickly after
P-B5 6 B-K2 K-N4 7 K~B3 with a 1 B-R2 K-B8 2 K-B4 K-N7 and 1

drawing fortress) 5 B-B6 K-B5 6 B-N7 B-Q4 P-B5+ 2 K-R2 P-B6 3 K-Nl
 Bishop V. Three or More Pawns 15

P-B7+ 4 BxP P-R7+. So Black, who

has the move, must turn it over to
White. K-Q7! 2 B-R2 {2 K-B2
1 . . .

K-Q6! 3 B~R2 K-K5 4 K-N3 K-K6 5

B-Nl-\- K-K7; nor does 4 B~N3 P-B5 5
B-R2 K-B4 6 B-Ml P-M6+ 7 K-B3
P-R7 rescue White.) 2 K-K8! 3 . . .

B-Nl K-K7.
After K-K8? 2 B-K3! K-B8 (If
1 . . .

2 . . . K~K7, then 3 B-B4! giving White

a draw.) 3 B-B4 K-N8 4 B—K3-t- K-R8
5 B-B4 P-R7 6 B-K3, Black can no Y. Averbakh 1954
longer win.
salvation: 1 . . . K-B5! 2 P-R5 {2 P-N5
K-K4 3 P-M B~Q4 4 P-R5 B-M2 5
P-B6 BxP 6 P-R6 K-Q^ 7 P-JV7 K-B2)
2 B-B5! (The outside pawn must be
. . .

stopped; if 2 K~K4, then 3 P-R6 . . .

B—Bl 4 P—N5 K—K3 5 P—B6, etc., or 4

• K-Q4 5 P-R7 B-N2 6 P-B6 B-Rl 7
. .

P-B7.) 3 P-B6 K-K4 4 P-B7 B-R3 5

P-N5 K-Q3!! Draw.
Even if the bishop succeeds in
blockading the pawns, the outcome
depends on where the kings reside.

H. Weenink 1918

41: An exception to the rule - White

draws because of the poor location of
the black king.
B-N3 P-Q6
1 2 BxP P-Q7 3 B-Kl!!
P-Q8=^R (J. . .
Q, stalemate.)
4 K-K2 R-R8 5 B-B3 R-R6 6 B-Q4,
etc.

When the kings stand far away, a

lone bishop cannot restrain pawns that
S. Tarrasch 1921
have passed beyond the fourth rank.
Observe diagram No. 42. 43: Black has blockaded the pawns -
42: After 1 P-B5, senseless is 1 . . . enter the kings. K-B3 K-B7 2 K-Q4 1

B-Q2, for P-R5? B-N4

White refuses 2 K-B6! 3 K-K5 K-N5 4 K-B6 K-R4.
in favour of 2 P-N5 K-B5 3 P-B6 B-Kl Although it seems that Black has a
4 P-R5 K-K4 5 P-R6 K-Q.3 6 P-R7, draw, bitter disappointment awaits
etc. him: 5 P-N8=Q! BxQ.6 K-N7 K-N4
An immediate king march brings 7 P-R3! K-R4 8 P-R4, zugzwang.
16 Bishop V. Pawns

2 ISOLATED PAWNS
Difficulties arise in the definition of K-N3 P-Q6 K-B3 5 P-Q7 K-B2 6
4
basic draws with isolated pawns. K-B7 B-R3 7 K-K8 B~N4 8 P-R6, etc.)
Diagram No. 44 presents a typical 3 K-K6 {3 K-B6 K-B2 4 K-K6 K-QJ,
situation. draw) 3 K—B4. . . 4 K— B7 B—Q3.
2 K-K4 KxP
3 K-B5 K-B4
4 K-K6 B-Bl
Black to move finds: 1 K-R4!
. . . 2
K-Q4 P-Q6 BxP{2 3 K-Qp B-B5 4
K-B6 B-K6.) 2 ... KxP, and so forth,
as in the previous note.
White produces a highly instructive
win after 1 K-B2: 2 K-Q4 K-N3 (If . . .

2. .K-Q^, thtn3P-MB^R34 K~K4!

.

- 4 K-B4 B-B5! 5 K-N5 KxP 6 P-N7

Y. Averbakh 1954 K-K3! P-R6 K-B2, draw - 4 ..
7 .

44: Regardless of who moves first,

B-N2 5 K-B5 KxP 6 P-JV7 B-K4 7
White cannot win, e.g., with Black to P-R6.) 3 K-K5 KxP 4 K-B6! K-N3! 5

move: B-K2 2 K-Q4

1 . . . 3
K-B7 B-R3 (5. B-N56 P-R6 K-B27 . .

K-K4 KxP 4 P-Q6 K-B3. P-R7 B-B6 8 K-K7! B-K4 9 P-Q6^ !!

Whitemove continues:
to 1 P-B6 BxP 10 K-K6) 6 P-Q6 K-B3 7 K-K7
B-Q3 2 P-B7 B-Bl 3 K-Q4 KxP 4 (White falls into zugzwang after 7 K-K6
K-K5 K-B4 5 K-K6 B-Q3. B-N4!) B-N4+ 8 K-K6 K-N2 9
7 . . .

Transferring the KBP to KR5 (No. K-Q7! B-B5 10 K-K7 B^NTf 11

45) does not alter the situation.
K-K8 K-Bl 12 P-Q74- K-B2 13
P-R6, winning.

Y. Averbakh 1954
46: The black king has greater
45: White to move plays: mobility than in No. 45, but accurate
1 K-Q4 B-N2+ play brings White a draw.
Simplest; also possible is 1 . . . KxP 2 K-N5! (Bad is 1 KxP K-B5 2 K-B6
1

K-K5 K-N3! (2 . . . K-B4? 3 K-K6 K-Q6 3 B-Nl P-K6.) K-K4 2 1 . . .

 Bishop V. Three or More Pawns 17

K-B5 (2 K-N6 K-B4 3 KxP K-N5 4 48: Thus, in this position, taken from
K-B6 K-B6 5 B-Nl P-K6) 2 K-B4 . . . an endgame study by Zakhodyakin,
3 K-Q5 P-N4 4 K-Q4! {4 K-B5 K-N5 White mates in four moves: K-B7! 1

5 KxPK-B66B-Nl P-K6) 4 P-N5 . . . P-R6 2 B-R4! P-R7 3 K-B6

5 K-B4 K-N5 6 KxP! K-B6 7 B-Nl P-R8“Q4 B-N5 mate.
P-K6 8 K-B3 P-K7 9 K-Q2, etc. Four pawns usually win against a
F amiliar motifs appear in the bishop, unless the defender blockades
following elegant study. the pawns. Then characteristic drawn
positions do arise.

M. Lewitt 1933

47: 1 K-K4 B-Ql 2 P-N6!! K-R3 Y. Averbakh 1954

(The move 2 .. . KxP deprives the
bishop of QN3, and after 3 K-B5 White 49: White’s ideal arrangement
queens the RP.) 3 K-K5! B-N4 4 P-R7 prevents Black from winning, e.g. 1 . . .

B-B8 5 K-Q6! BxP. We have reached K-B3 2 KxP K-B4 3 K-Q5 P-K5 [3
a known winning position for White . K-N5 4 K-K4) 4 BxP+ K-N5 5
. .

(See No. 24). K-Q4 P-B6 (5 K-R6 6 K-KS) 6

. . .

In exceptional situations the king K-K3, draw.

and bishop even win. For example, the Whether shifted to the left or to the

pawns may so restrict their own king as right, position No. 49 still ends in a

to encourage a mating net. draw.

48

G. Zakhodyakin 1932 Y. Averbakh 1954

18 Bishop V. Pawns
•m. ^

However, position No. 49 moved

50: P-N8=Q. 2 B-R7+ K-N7 3 BxQ.
down one rank wins for Black. After 1 P-R5! 4 B-R2! P-R6 5 K-Q3\
. K-B4 2 KxP K-B5 3 K-Q4 P-K6!
. . In some positions even a great pawn
4 BxP+ K-N6 5 K-Q3 P-B7, Black advantage will not win.
queens.
Drawing possibilities also emerge
against doubled or tripled pawns.

S. Lloyd

52: White immobilizes the pawns

with 1 B-Q7+ K-R6 2 B-B6! K-R7 3
L. Kubbel 1935
K- B2!, and since the black king cannot
51: White to move draws, despite aid the pawns, the game ends in a draw.
Black’s material superiority. 1 K-B4 A real victory for the blockade!
4 KING, BISHOP AND PAWN V. LONE KING

A king, bishop and pawn win against a away the king only leads to stalemate.
lone king, except in the following two The situation in No. 55 clarifies the

exceptional cases. second exception. Neither the bishop

1) The lone king occupies the square in nor the king can defend the pawn.
front of the pawn and cannot be forced
away.
2) The lone king captures the pawn.

At times only one winning line exists,

making precise play the sole escape
from falling into one of the exceptional
D. Ponziani 1782 drawn positions.

Positions Nos. 53 and 54 illustrate the

first exception. Any attempt to drive A. Troitsky 1896

20 Bishop V. Pawns

56: So, here White cannot let the

black king sneak into the corner: 1

B-K6! K-K2 2 P-R6! K-B3 3 B-B5!!

K-B2 4 B-R7! K-B3 5 K-B4 K-B2 6
K-N5 K-Bl 7 K-B6, and wins.
The bishop intercepts the path of the
black king. This ‘path interception’
procedure takes on great value in
bishop endgames.
57: Black threatens to win the pawn
with . . . K-B5. Only one move stops
this: 1 B-Q5! KxB 2 K-N5 and White
wins.
5 BISHOP AND PAWN V. PAWN

King, bishop and pawn usually win

against king and pawn. Following, we
briefly state the winning ideas:

1) With a passed pawn, one piece

supfX)rts this pawn’s advance while the
other detains the enemy pawn.
2) Without a passed pawn, one piece
wins the enemy pawn to bring about a
king, bishop and pawn v. lone king
endgame.
In the following basic, but
exceptional, situations the game ends in
a draw:
1) The enemy clings to pawn,
its

forestalling the birth of a passed pawn.

2) After the enemy pawn has been

captured, play reduces to a drawn king,
bishop and pawn v. lone king endgame.
3) The sides exchange pawns.
4) An unfortunate placement of the Such impregnable sites shall be
pieces frustrates the completion of a termed ‘fortresses’.

winning plan. The creation of ‘fortresses’ comprises

Let us examine these cases in greater an important defensive endgame idea.
detail. 1 he knowledge of such positions helps
58: Though the bishop surveils the immensely to avoid errors.
corner square. Black cannot win: 1 . . .
61: Beauty crowns White’s triumph
K-B6 2 K-Bl B-K 64- 3 K-Nl K-QV 4 in this example.
K-Rl K-B7, stalemate. White has an active bishop. If 1
If the black pawn occupies QR5, B-R7, then Black plays 1 K-B6 2 . . .

Black manoeuvres his king to QR6, K-N5 K-Q5 3 K-B6 K-K4

P-N6 4
easily winning the QRP and the (To 4 K-Q7 comes 4... P-N3! 5 K~K7
game. K-B4, draw.) 4 K-K3! 5 B-Nflf
. . .

In Nos. 59 and 60 the unconquerable K-K2 and Black constructs his fortress.
QNP prevents Black from winning. Nor does K-N4 KxB 2 K-B4
1
22 Bishop V. Pawns

and if 2 . . . BxP, then 3 K-B5 winning

the pawn. Black must play 1 P-N6. . . .

2 K-Q3! 2 K-B3?? would be a blunder,

since after 2 . . . K-K6 the white king is
forced away from his pawn, but after
the text move the draw is inevitable.
Now observe No. 63.

H. Weenink 1922

K-Q7 K-Q4 K-K7 4 K-K4 K-B7

3 5
K-B4 K-N7 6 K-N4 P-N3! work.
However, White does have a decisive
continuation: 1 B-Nl!! KxB (After 1
. . . K-B62K-N5K-Q53K-B6K~K44
K-Q7! P-N3 5 K-K7! Black no longer
K-N3 K-B8 3
has access to KB4.) 2
K-B3 K-Q8 4 K-Q3 K-K8 5 K-K3 63: After 1 . . . K-B7 White plays 2

K-B8 6 K-B3 K-N8 7 K-N3 K-B8 (7 P-N4 (or 2 P-N 3), drawing, since 2 . . .

. P-N3 8 K-B4 K-N7 9 K-K5 K-N6

. .
PxP bears stalemate.

10 K-B6) 8 P-N6 K-K7 9 K^B4,

So, against a whose bishop does RP
not control the queening square the
winning.
defending king draws by occupying
that square.
When the defending king isolates
himself from this queening square, a
win becomes feasible.

Y. Averbakh 1972

62: How should White save himself in

this position? With reference to a
previous example (No. 59) we easily
find the solution: Paulsen-Metger,
1 K-04! As 2 P-N3 is threatened, Nuremburg 1888
 1

•Bishop and Pawn v. Pawn 23

1
64: White intends to march his king 1 P-N4 K-R5!
to QN6, win the pawn and prevent the If K-B2, then 2 B-Q5+ K-B3 3
1 . . .

black king from occupying QRl. This B-N8 P-N4 (The moves 3 .. K-B4 4 .

he does by B-R7+ K-B3 5 B-N6 K-K2 6 K-N5

K-Q4!! K-Bl 7 B-R7 bring about a position
White must play accurately. If 1 from the previous example.) 4 K-R6
K-B5?, then 1 P-NSf 2 PxP . . . ! K-B4 5 P-R3! K-B3 (5 P-N5 6 . . .

K-N2 - the game continued 1 K-B4? B-K6^ ! KxB 7 PxP) ^ B-Q5 K-B4 7
P-N4H-!, draw. K-N7! K-K4 (7. . . P-N58B-K6^!) 8
4
1 K-B3
. . . K-N6 K-B5 9 B-K6.
1 .P-N3 (or i
. . P-N4 2 P-R6 . . .
2 K-R6 P-N5!
K-B3 3 K-B3 K-Q3 4 K-N4 K-B3 5 K-B4, then 3 P-R3 K-B3
If 2 . . .

K-R5) 2 P-R6 K-B3 3 K-B4 K-Q3 4 {3... K-B5 4 K-N6!) 4 B-Q.5 K-B4 5
K-N4 K-B3 5 B-N8 P-N4 6 B-R7! K-N7, and White wins.
K-B2 7 KxP, and wins. Black prolongs resistance with 2 . . .

2 B-N6! P-N5. White must capture the NP, yet

White errs with 2 K-B3 P-N3 3 not let the black king into KRl.
P-R6 K-N4. 3 B-K4 K-B2
2 K-Q3 . . . In response to the active 3 . . . K-K4,
2 K-N4 3 K-Q5 K-R3 4 K-Q6
. . . White wins quickest with 4 K-N5!
K-N4 5 K-B7 K-R3 6 K-N8. K-K3 {4. .KxB5KxPK-K46K-N5 .

3 K-B4 K-B3 K-K3 K-M7 K-K3 9

7 K-N6 K-K2 8
K-N4 K-Q3 K-N5 K-Q2 6
5 P-R4 K-B4 10 P-R5) 5 K-N6 K-K4 (5
K-B5 K-Bl 7 B-R7 K-B2 8 K-N5 . K-K26 B-B5 K-B17 K-R7) 6B-N7
. .

K-Q2 9 B-N8 K-Bl 10 B-B4 K-Q,2 1 K-B5 {6 .. K-K3 7 B-B8r\^) 1 K-B6 .

K-N6 K-Bl 12 B-N3, etc. P-N6 8 P-R3!

In No. 65 White unravels a more 4 B-R7!
complex winning line. White must not allow the black king
into K-R7 K-B3 5 B-Q5
KNl; if 4
K-N4 6 K-N7 K-R5 7 B-N2 K-N4 8
K-R7 K-R5 9 K-N6, then 9 . . .

P-N6!! 10 P-R3, stalemate!

4 . . . K-B3
To K-K3 follows 5 B-N8-|-
4 ...
K-B3 6 B-Q5 K-K4 7 B-N7 K-B4 8
B-B6 K-B5 9 K-N6 P-N6 10 P-R4.
If 4 . . . K-Bl, then White continues
5 K-N6 K-K2 6 B-N8 K-Q3 7 K-B6
and 8 B-K6.
5 K-K3 B-N6
V. Kosek 1930 After 5 K-K4 White finds 6 . . .

K-N5 K-K3 7 B-R5 K-K2 8 K-R6

65: Black threatens a draw with 1 . . . K-Bl 9 K-R7, and to 5 ... K-K2
P-N3 and 2 . . . K-N2. follows 6 B-B5 K-B2 7 K-R7.
24 Bishop V. Pawns

6 B-K8 K-K2
67
If 6 . . . K-B4, then 7 B-B6 K-B3 8
B-Q7, etc., as previously examined. +
7 B-B6 K-Bl
B-Q5 K-K2 9 K-N7 K-Q.3
8 10
B-N7 K-K4 11 K-N6 K-K3 12
B-B8-I-, and so on.
The following beautiful study treats
the identical theme.

B-B5 K-R4 2 K-N7 K-N4 3

1

B-N6! (Achieving this opposition.

White completes an important tactical
step in endgames of this type. The black
king has been driven back one rank.) 3
. . . K-B6 K-N6 {4 .. K-Q6 5
K-B5 4 .

K-Jsf5 K-K56KX P K-Q4 7 K-N5 K~Q^

8 K-R6 K-B3 9 P-R4 K-Q2 10 K-N7,
and so forth.) 5 B-B5 K-B5 6 B-Q6
(Horwitz and Kling indicated this
O. Duras 1908 possibility: 6 B-K3 K-N6 7 B-Bl K-B5

8 B-m K-N6 9 K-N5!) 6 K-Q5 7 . . .

66: 1 B-N4! K-B2 P-R4 K-K3

2 K-N5 K Q4 8 B-R2 K-K3 9 KxP
(After 2 ... K-Kl 3 P-R5 K-QJ 4 K-Q2 10 K-N5 K-Bl 11 K-B6, etc.
B-Q6! K-Bl 5 P-R6, Black can resign.) Although the black king drew near,
3 P-R5 K-Q4 4 P-R6 K-B3 5 B-R5!! he could not occupy QRl.
White blocks the black king’s passage to The Rauzer spent a
Soviet master
QRl. Now White has no problems great deal of time analysing endgames
winning: as the white king draws near, with RP’s. A limited resume of his

the QP runs out of moves, forcing the investigations follows.

black king to abandon QB3. A classical A classical position by Horwitz and
study of the ‘path interception’ theme! Kling appears in diagram No. 68.
Curiously, Black draws without the Horwitz and Kling, 1851, also
68:
QP: B-N4 K-B2 2 P-R4 K-K3 3
1 Berger, 1921, wrote that White wins
P-R5 K-Q21 4 P-R6 K-B2, etc. The only on move. As early as 1928
if he is

black pawn performs a negative Rauzer demonstrated that White wins

function by depriving the black king of regardless of who moves first.
02 .
. White to move wins in the following
No. 67 presents a variation on a manner:
theme by Horwitz and Kling, 1851. 1 B-B4! K-N7!
67: White wins by eliminating the K-B7 2 K-K4 K-N7 3
After 1 . . .

RP without letting the black king into K-Q4 K-B6 4 B-R2 K-N5 5 K-B4
QRl. K-B4 6 K-N4 K-K3 7 KxP K-Q2 8
 Bishop and Pawn v. Pawn 25

K-N7 12 K-Q3 K-B6 13 K-B4 K-K5

14 K-N5 K-Q4 15 B-R2 K-Q5 16
K xP, winning.
B. 4 K-Q6 5 B-K3! K-B5 6
. . .

K-K5 K-N6 7 B-B5 K-B5 8 K-Q6

2 K-N4 9 K-Q5 K-R4 10 K-B6 K-R3
11 B-Nl K-R4 12 K-N7 K-N4 13

B-N6, etc., as in position No. 67.

C. 4 . . . K-Q8 5 B-K3 K-B7 6
K-K5! {If 6 K-K4?, then 6 ... K-M 7
B-B5 K-B5 8 B-K3 K-M 9 B-Bl
Horwitz and Kling 1851 K-B5, draw.) 6 K-N6 7 B-B5 K-B5 . . .

8 K-Q6 K-N6 9 K-B6 K-B5 10 B-Q6,

K-N5 K-Bl 9 K-B6, White succeeds in etc., as in No. 67.
keeping the black king out of QRl. Black to move in No. 68 complicates
K-N4! White’s task.

White loses time with 2 K-K4? The win involves gaining a tempo
K-R6 3 K-Q4 K-N5 when his best and obtaining the initial position with
continuation does no more than reunite White to move. Rauzer found the
the king and bishop, for the pawn correct manoeuvre.
capture after 4 B-R2? K-B4 5 K-B4 1 . . . K-N6
K-K3 6 K-N5 K-Q2 does not win, as 2 B-B6! K-B6
will be seen later. In other words. White The moves 2 . . . K-R6 K-B4
3
need not hurry. His first task should be K-R7 4 K-B3 K-R6 5 B-N5 K-R7 6
to drive the black king as far away as K-N4 K-N7 7 B— B4 lead to a line
possible. examined earlier.

2 . . . K-B7 3 B-K5 K-K6

3 B-Bl! 4 R N2!
White attempts to gain a tempo, The only winning move. Berger
setting up the arrangement B-KB4 merely tested 4 B-N8? K-Q5 5 K-K6
V. K-KN7 with White to move, and K-B4 K-Q7 K-N3 7 K-B8 K-B3 8
6
then play B-N3, forcing the black king B-B7 K-Q4 9 K-Q7 K-B4 10 B-Q8
onto the last rank. K-Q4 B-K7 K-K4, and, as we shall
1 1

3 . . . K-K7 see later, the black king stands within

4 K-B4 the drawing zone.
Now Black has many alternatives. 4 K-Q6. . .

A. 4 . B-KSf K-N7 6
. . K-B7 5 4 K-B6 5 B-Bl K-N6 6 B-N5
. . .

K-N4K-R7 {6... K~R8 7 B-B4 K-N7 K-B7 7 K-B4 K-K7 8 K-K4 K-B7 9
8 B-N3 K-moves 9 K-B3 and so forth, as B-B4 K-N7 10 K-Q4! K-B6 11 B-R2,
in the main variation.) 7 B-B4+ K-N7 and wins, as mentioned before.
8 B-N3 K-N8 9 K-B3 K-R8 10 B-N8! 5 K-K5 K-K6
K-N8 (Black needs more space to The variation 5 . . . K-B5 6 B-Q4
bypass on the right. This notion K-N6 7 B-B5 has already been
underlies White’s plan.) 11 K-K3 considered.
26 Bishop V. Pawns

Continuing 6 B-Bl-f K-B6 7 K-B5 king out of the corner.

K-N6 8 B-N5 K-B6, White carries out 1 B-Q6 K-Ql 2 K-N 7 K-Q2 3 B-B7
this plan. K-K3 (Black resists an immediate
retreat, as in K-K24 K-B6 K-K35
. .

B-Q6.) 4 K-B6 K-K2 5 B-N6 K-K3 6

B-B5 K-K4 7 B-B8 (And Black faces a
host of possibilities. We shall consider

one of these in depth.) 7 . . . K-Q5 8

B-N74- K-K5! (A loss punishes 8 .. .

K-B5? 9 B^K5 K-Q6 10 K-Q5 K-K6 11

B^R2! K-Q6 12 K-B5 K~K5 13 K-N5
K-Q4 14 B-N3 and 15 KxP.) 9 K-Q6
K-B4 10 B-K5 K-N3 (Black’s 10 .. .

K~K5? after 11 K-K6! begets position

No. 69.) 11 K-K6 K-N4 12 B-Q6
V. Rauzer 1928 K-N3 (The move 12 .. . after 13
K-B6 K-R4 14 B-B4! K-N5 15 B-Bl
69: The solution to this problem K-R4 16 B-K5 K-N5 17 K-M K-B6 18
presents no difficulties. K-B5 leads to position No. 68.) 13
With White to move, 1 B-R2 K-Q5 B-K7 K-N2 14 B-N4 K-N3 15 B-B3
2 K-Q6 K-B5K-B6 K-N6 {3 ..
3 .
K-N4 16 B-K5! K-N3. {16 .. K-N5 .

K-Q5 4 K-N5 K-Q4 5 B-N3 and 6 17 K-B6 K-B6 18 K~B5 K-K6 19

KxP) 4 B-Q6 K-B5 5 B-B5, etc. B-N2! ,
etc.) 17 B-B6 K-R3 (White has
With Black to move, 1 . . . K-B6! succeeded in corralling the king to one
(Black attempts a bypass on the right.) side, K-B7 K-R2 19
but what now?) 18
2 K-B5 K-K6 3 B-N2! and so forth, as B-K5 K-R3 20 B-N7+ K-R2 21 K-B8
in No. 68. (Otherwise, White could not drive the
Place the black king in No. 67 on black king out of the corner.) 21 ...
QBl instead of QR3, and notice how K-N3 22 K-N8 K-B4 23K-B7 K-N4
this influences the outcome. 24 B-B8 K-B4 25 B-K7 (Finally,
White has chased the king out of the
corner only to see him run toward
. . .

QRl.) 25 ... K-K4 26 K-K8 (The

black king must not enter QRl.) 26 . . .

K-K3! 27 B-B8 (The moves 27 K-Q8

K-B2 causes a repetition of the above.)
27 . K-B3 28 B-N4 K-N2 29 B-B3+
. .

K-N3 30 K-K7 K-B4 31 K-Q6 K-N3

(In driving back the black king. White
only compels him to QRl or KRl.
Since the bishop does not control the
KR2-QN8 diagonal, a draw results
70: White’s first move involves little from 32 K-B6 K-B2 33 K~N5 K-Kl 34
speculation - he must keep the black KxP K-Q^ 35 K-N5 K-B2.) 32 B-K5
 .

Bishop and Pawn v. Pawn 27

K-B2, and so on until the fiftieth move,

when a draw must be conceded.
K-K3, instead of
Incidentally, 7 . , .

7 K-Q5, 8 B-Q6 K-B2 9 K-Q7

. . .

K-B3 10 B-R2 K-B2 (With 10 .. .

K-B4 11 K-K7 K-N4 12 K-K6 White

succeeds in confining the black king,
and 11 ... K-K6 K-Q5
K-K5?, after 12

13 K-Q6 K-B5 14 K-B6 K-Q5 15 K-N5

K-Q4 16 B-JV3, also loses.) 11 B-K5
K-N3 12 K-K6, etc., falls into the main
variation.
R. Teichmann 1899, and
Conclusion - A drawing zone exists;
V. Rauzer 1928
if Black places his king inside it, he
draws. 72: An interesting history underlies
Rauzer formulated a rule to ease this position. In 1900 Teichmann
evaluation of such positions. published a brief and unconvincing win
'White always wins if the black king for White. As a result, general
remains cut off from the board area concensus in 1912 incorrectly deemed
surrounded by(B) QRl, KRl, KR3, KB5, the position drawn. Only in 1928 did
Q5, QR2.' (Diagram No. 71.) Rauzer demonstrate conclusively that
White wins.
White’s plan involves the following
ideas: If the black king, without leaving
the drawing zone, forces White to push
P-R3, Black wins this pawn and draws;
but should the black king stray outside
the drawing zone. White then
volunteers P-R3 and constructs the
previously analysed ending.
1 K-N6 K-Q2
2 K-N7
K-Ql
In White cuts the black king
this case Or 2 K-K2 3 K-B6 K-Ql 4
. . .

off from KR 1 and QR 1 B-Q6 K-Kl 5 K-B7 K-B2 6 K-Q7,

Black does not automatically draw etc.
justby placing his king within the K-B6!
3 K-K2!
drawing zone. Depending on the Or 3 K-Bl? 4 B-B7 P-R6 5 B-Q6
. . .

proximity of the white king to the black K-Ql 6 BxP.

RP, he must also reach QRl in time. 4 B-B7 K-K3
Consequently, when the bishop 5 B-Q6 K-B4
controls the KR2-QN8 diagonal, the If 5 . . . K-B3, then 6 K-Q7 K-B4 7
black king from within the drawing K-K7 K-K5 8 K-K6 K-Q5 9 B-R3
zone must be able to answer K-QN5 (A employed
frequently bishop
with . . . K-Q2. manoeuvre - one step backwards and
28 Bishop V. Pawns

two steps forwards.) 9 . . . K-B5 10 K-K6 15 K-B5

K-Q6 K-Q5 K-B6 or 10 .. {10 .. . . To 15 ... K-R4 follows 16 K—B5
K-N4 11 B-B5) 11 B-N2+ K-K5 {11 K-R3 17 B-BRf K-R4! 18 B-N7
. K-Q6 12 K-Q^ K-B7 13 B-Q4 P-R6
. .
K-R5 19 B-R6, etc.
14 K~B4 K-N8 15 K-M3) 12 K-K6 16 B-B6 K-K5
K-B5 3 B-B6 and so forth, as after the
1 After 16 K-N5 17 K-K5 K-R4 . . .

sixteenth move in the main variation. 18 K-B5 K-R3 19 B-N2 K-R2 20

6 K-Q7 K-B3 K-B6 K-R3 21 B-B1+ K-R4

7 B-R3 (Stalemate follows 21 ... K-R2.),
Possible B-R2 K-B4! 8 K-K7
was 7 White continues 22 K-B5 K-R5 23
K-N4! 9 K-K6 K-N3 10 B-Q6 K-N2 B-B4 K-R6 24 B-N5 K-N6 25 P-R3
11 B-K7 K-N3! 12 B-B6!, etc. and so on.

7 . . . K-K4 17 B-K5 K-B6

8 B-K7 K-B4 Black tries a bypass on the kingside.
If 8 . K-Q4,
. . then 9 B-Q6 K-K5! If 17 . . . K-K6 or 17 . . . K-Q6, then 18
10 K-K6 K-Q5 11 B-R3, etc. K-Q5 eventually winning the black
9 K~Q6 K-N3 pawn.
9 K-K5 10 K-K6 K-B5
. . . 1 1 B-B6 18 B-R2!
or 10 K-Q5 11 B-R3, etc.
. . . After 18 K-B5 K-K6 19 P-R3?
10 K-K6 K-N2 K-Q6 20 K-K6 K-B5, Black abides
11 B-Q8 K-N3! within the drawing zone.
White replies to 11 . . K-Bl with
. 12 Now 18 P-R3 wins, since the black
B-B6 K-Nl! 13 K-K7 and to 11 ... king resides outside of the drawing
K-Nl with 12 K-B6 K-Bl 13 B-K7+, zone; however, Black then prolongs the
stalemating the black king. game by forcing position No. 64, Black
21
12 R B6 K-R3! to move.
Black prepares to answer 13 K-B5 18 . . . K-N5!
with 13... K-R2 and to parry 1 3 K-B7 K-B619 K-R4(R6)
with 13 . . . K-R4. Or 19 K-B6 20 K-B5 K-K6 {20. . .

13 K-B7 . K-M7 21 B~B4 K-R6 22 K-N5, etc.)

. .

White faces many difficulties. He 21 K-K5 K-Q6 22 K-Q5 P-R6 {22...

must evict the black king from KRl K-B6 23 P-R3) 23 B-K5 K-B7 24
without letting it repair to QRl. This K-B4.
he accomplishes by placing the white K-R5, then 20 K-B5 K-R4
If 19 . . .

king on KR6, threatening stalemate; 21 B-B4 K-R5 22 B-Bl K-N6 23 B-R6

but simpler tasks do exist. K-R5 {23 ... K-B6 24 B-N5 K-M 25
White needs this piece set-up: P-R3) 24 B-B4 K-R6 25 B-N5 K-N6
K-KB5, B— KB6 v. K-KR3^ White to {25 .. . A'-A7 ‘26 A B4) 26 P-R3.
move. Then he can evacuate the 20 B-B4 K-N5
bishop from KB6 and put in the king. B-N5 K-N6 22 K-B5 K-B6 23
13 K-R4 . . . B-B4 K-N7 24 P-R3 K-B6 25 B-R6
14 B-K7 K-N5 K~N6 26 B-N5 K-B6. White finally
If 14 K-R3, then 15 K-B6 K-R4!
. . . realizes his objective.
16 B-B8 K-N5 17 B-R6, etc. From this position. No. 68, it takes no
 • Sishop and Pawn v. Pawn 29

more than nineteen moves to capture K-R2! White still can get into trouble,
the pawn. However, in No. 72 this for 10 K-R4? B-N7 hands Black a
manoeuvre requires forty-five (!!) victory. The text move places White’s
moves. king safely inside the drawing zone.
Teichmann’s analysis permits the B.lB-N2 2 K-B5 B-K5 (2
. . . . . .

following conclusion on the evaluation K-Q7 3 K-Q6 P-R3! 4 K-K5 K-K6 5

of analogous positions: K-B5B-B66K-N5, etc.) 3 K-Q6! (But
‘Against a white pawn on QR2, not 3 K-M5, as 5 . . . B-Q6-\- wins for
Black draws only when he has time to force Black.) 3 . . . B-Q6 K-B7 P-R3! 5
4
the move P-QR3 while returning his king K-Q6 K-Q7 6 K-K5 K-B6 7 K-B4,
to the drawing zone.’ (Rauzer) draw.
No. 73 illustrates this corollary. One drawing idea mentioned in the
beginning of this section concerns the
exchange of pawns.
At times, certain problem solutions
obscure this exchange and may even
make it seem impossible, e.g., in No. 74.

V. Rauzer 1928

K-N5! (Bad is 1 K-B5? K-B7 2

73: 1

K-Q6 K-B6 3 K-B7 K-N5 4 P-R6

K-N4, winning.) Now two main
continuations confront Black: R. Red 1928
A. 1 . . . B-B8+ 2 K-B6 K-Q7 3 74: How can White overtake the
K-B7! (A loss results from 3 K~N7? black pawn?
P-R3 K-B6 K-B6 5 K-Q5 B-Q6 6
4 I K-K7!
K~K5 K-N5! 7 K-Q4 B-R2, etc.) 3 . . .
This initially mysterious move turns
P-R3! (White threatened 4 P-R6.) 4 out to be very logical.
K-Q6 B-N7 (Black intends to lock the It brings to life the geometrical
white king out of the ‘drawing’ zone, postulate on the chessboard that a king
QRl, QR2, Q5,
here composed of (W) march in a straight line equals a king march

K4, KB5, KR3, KRl. If 4 K-B6, . . .

in an oblique line. Specifically note that

K-K5 B-Q6 6
then White draws with 5 the shortest route between two points
K-B4 K-N5 7 K-K3 B~R2 8 K-Qf.) 5 does not always consist of a straight line.

K-K5 K-K6 6 K-B5 B-B6 7 K-N5! 1 . . .

P-N4
(After 7 K-K5? B-K5^\dic\i wins.) 7 . . .
2 K-Q6 P-N5
K-K5 8 K-R4 K-B5 9 K-R3 B-B3 10 If 2 . . . B^R4 3 K-K5 K-N2, then
30 Bishop V. Pawns

not 4 K-B5? P-N5 5 K-B4 K-B2; but 4

P-K7! K-B2 5 K-B5 P-N5 6
P-K8=Q,
5 draw.
P-K7!
3 B-N4
4 K-B5!
White has coerced the bishop to
QN4, gaining the necessary tempo, and
now arrives in time to stop the NP.
4 . . . B-Q2
K-Q4 K-N2 6 K-K4 K-B3 7
K-B4 K-Q3 8 P-K8=Q, draw.
76: At first glance Black appears to
have a win. Nonetheless, White
continues: 1 K-N6! (Black wins after 1

K-K6? B-R3.) ... B-B5 2 K-B5!

\

B-Q3 3 K-K6! B-Bl 4 K-B7 B-R3 5

K-N6, and the bishop cannot hide from
the king. Draw.
The black pawn on B4 restricts the

bishop’s mobility.
The motif of one piece relentlessly
stalking another receives the name
‘perpetual pursuit’.

1927 77: Likewise, in this position, the

S. Zhigis (?)
move 1 K-B5! prevents White from
. . .

75; In this final touch to a study by rearranging his pieces and winning,
Zhigis(?), White exchanges pawns by e.g., 2 B-B8 K-N6 3 B-R3 K-B5 or 2

taking advantage of the stalemate K-^B3 K-N6! 3 K-K2 K-B7, etc.

possibilities.

1 K-R3 (/ K-N3? B-B7 2 K-R4

B-Q8) 1 . . . K-B5! (7 . . .K-B42K-R4
K-N3 3 P-N4) 2 K-R4 B-N3
Apparently, Black has evaded the
exchange of pawns, but 3 P-N4!
changes all this, for 3 . . . PxP leads to
stalemate.
An unfortunate piece set-up may so
complicate a win, that victory becomes
impossible, if the stronger side cannot
improve the position of his forces. A. Batuyev 1940
6 BISHOP AND PAWN V. TWO PAWNS

F rom a material point of view, a bishop and although White has fixed the black
and pawn considerably outweigh two pawns, he cannot yet afford to let Black
pawns, so other things being equal, the dissolve the blockade, for his king
side with the bishop generally wins. stands unprepared to support the
The winning plan follows: advance of the QP.) 1 . . . P-N6 2 B-B4!
1) With a passed pawn, promote it (Again, the only move; Black
while neutralizing the impending threatened 2 . . . P-R6.) 2 . . . P-N7 3
threat of an enemy pawn advance. B-R2 P-R6 4 B-Nl K-Q2. White has
2) Without a passed pawn, before achieved his goal; he has broken Black’s
promotion eliminate any bothersome blockade and prepared for the pawn
enemy pawns. advance. K-B5 K-B2 6 P-Q6-|-
5
We shall now examine in detail a K-Q,2 7 K-Q5 K-Ql 8 K-B6 K-Bl 9
performance of this winning motif. P-Q74- K-Ql 10 B-R2, and White
wins.
Notice how smoothly the pieces
worked together, the bishop restraining
the enemy pawns, while the king
supported the advance of the lone
pawn.
Endgames of this type characteristi-

cally call for a division of labour, as has

been witnessed many times.

Y. Averbakh 1954

78: In blockading the white pawn.

Black threatens to advance his own
pawns.
White has to stop this threat, and
then Black will be forced to lift the
blockade. So, he continues 1 B-Bl! (To
1 K-B4 comt% ; . . . P-R62K-N3K-B4, P. Trifunovic 1951
32 Bishop V. Pawns

79: The pieces switch roles here, i.e., pawn.) 3K-Q(^ K-B2 {3 .. P-K4 4 .

while the king controls the ene K-K6 P-K5 5 K-B6, etc.) 4 K-K5!
pawns, the bishop defends the lone K-Nl 5 K-B6 P-K4 6 B-N5 P-R4 7
pawn. Clearly, an exchange of K-N6. The curtain now falls, for White
functions must take place before White has finished the ‘r61e change’.
can win. When the enemy king can offer

The author proffered this solution: 1 assistance to his pawns, the bishop
B-K8 K-N3 {1 ... K-Q^ 2 P-N6) 2 alone usually cannot stop the pawns’
B-Q7 K-B4 3 B-B6. The same position advance and must seek co-operation
emerges, only with Black to move. 3 . . . from the king. Only after the pawns’
K-N3 {3 ... K-Q^ 4 K-B5 P-N6 5 complete immobilization, through
K-N4 and 6 KxP) 4 K-Q5! P-N6 5 bishop blockade or elimination, can
K-B4. The rest becomes obvious. this king ponder advancing his own
However, another winning idea pawn.
hides within this problem: 1 K--K3 (But Diagram No. 81 presents a typical
not 1 K- 03 when
P-N6 2 K-K3 1 . . . example.
P-K5! draws.) K-N3 2 K-Q3!
1 . . .

K-B4 {2... P-N63K-B4) 3 K-K4 and 81

so forth, as in the author’s variation.
Through ‘triangulation’ White has
+
put Black on move.

Y. Averbakh 1954

81: 1 B-B6! (White tries to provoke a

pawn advance.) P-B6 2 B-N7 1 . . .

K-B5 {2. P-B7 3 B-R6 K-B5 4 B-Bl

. .

A. Troitsky 1895 K-B6 5 P-JV5 P-Q6 6 K-K3) 3 K-K2

P-Q6+ 4 K-K3 P-Q7 5 K-K2 K-N6 6
80: This example presents an K-Ql K-B5 7 K-B2 and wins.
imaginative study by Troitsky where Sometimes, even though the bishop
White’s pieces once again ‘switch roles’. can stop the pawns, the winning idea
1 B-R6f K-Nl 2 P-N7 P-K34-! cannot be realized.
(The subtle idea behind the 82: 1 1 is difficult to believe that White
composition, for if .2 . . . K-B2, then to move can draw here. Black to move
3 P-N8^ Q,+ !! Kx (14 K-K6 K-Rl
after wins easily. After 1 . . . K-B3 2 K-B4
5 K-B7 White mates. Therefore, Black P-N4b 3 K-K4 K-K3 White must
tries to eliminate the superfluous resign.
 Bishop and Pawn v. Two Pawns 33

P-R7 Black has 22 . . . P-NB=Q, and if

23 P-R8=Q, then 23 . .
.
Q-N7+ etc.

But on 15 . . . B-B7I White can reply

1 6 K-B3! driving the bishop
,
away from
. . . KB7. After the bishop moves, 17
K-B4 K-B3 18 K-K4 leads to a draw.
Strange as it may seem, the diagonal
. . .
QR2-KN8 proves to be too short!
Along its whole length the white king
can successfully combat the bishop.

V. Chekhover, Shakhmatny Bulletin 1962

With White to move the play

develops as follows:K-B4 K-B3 2 1

K-K4 K-K3 3 K-B4 P-N3 4 K~N5

K-B2 5 K-B4 K-B3 6 K-K4.
What can Black do now? If 6 ...
P-N4, then 7 K-Q5 P-N5 8 K-B6
P-N6 9 KxB P-N7 10 P-R7
11 K-N7 with a draw.
Black therefore transfers his bishop to
a different square. But to which one?
Chekhover, Shakhmatny Bulletin 1962
Let us try QR2. Then after 6. . . . . ,

K-K3 7 K-B4 B-R2 8 K-N5 K-B2 9

K-B4 K-B3 10 K-K4 nothing is gained Here Black to move wins by 1
83: . . .

by 10 P-N4 11 K-Q5 P-N5 12

. . .
B-R2, when White is in zugzwang. But
K-B6 P-N6 13 P-N6 P-N7 (or 13 .. .
after 1 K-Q4! the result is a draw; e.g. 1

Bx P 14 KxB P~K7 15 P-R7 P~N8= . . . B-R2+ (7 K-B4 2 K~B5, or . . . 1

16 K-K7 -dT 2LVf) 14 PxB P-N8=Q;f 15 . . . P-N5 2 K-K4! followed by P-R7) 2

K-N7, once again with a draw. K-K4.
Let us make one more attempt: 10 Now it is Black who is in zugzwang: 2
. K-K3 11 K-B4 B—N8. Now White
. .
. K-B3 3 K-Q5 P-N5 4 K-B6 P-N6
. .

draws by 12 K-N5 K-B2 13 K-B4 5 K-B7 P-N7 6 P-N8=Q BxQ^^ 7

K-B3 14 K-K4 P-N4 15 K-Q5 P-N5 KxBP-N8 = Q.8P-R7,or4. .B-Nl .

16K-B6 P-N6 17P-N6P-N7 18P-R7, 5 K-N6 P-N6 6 P-R7 etc.

since on . . . N8 the bishop prevents its 84: It appears that here White should
own pawn from queening! play 1 P-N6. But this is a false trail!

It remains to try moving the bishop Black replies 1 . . . B-N5! 2 K-B4 (or 2

to . . . KB7. If after 14 K-K3 15 . . .

P~K7 B^Q^ 3 P-R5 B-Nl 4 P-R6 K-B3
K-B4 B-B71 White continues 16 K-N5 and wins) 2 K-B3 3 K-K4 K-K3 4
. . .

K-B2 17 K-B4 K-B3 18 K-K4?, then K-B4 (on 4 K-Q4 K-Q3 5 K-B4 the
he loses, sinceP-N4 19 K-Q5 on 18 . . .
simplest is 5 P~N4 6 KxB P-N5 7 . . .

P-N5 20 K-B6 P-N6 21 P-N6 P-N7 22 K-N5 P-M8 K-R6 P-N79 P-N7 K-B2
 34 Bishop V. Pawns

10 K-R7 P-M&=(1{-) 4 K-Q3 5 . . .

K-B5 K-B3 6 K-N6 B-B6 7 P-R5

K-N2, and White is in zugzwang!

V. Chekhover, Shakhmatny Bulletin 1962

B-R4 2 K-Q5, the plan to transfer the

black king to . .
.
QR4 does not work;
V. Chekhover, Shakhmatny Bulletin 1962 e.g. 2 . . . K-Q2 3 K-K5 K-B2 4 K-B5
K-N3 5 K-N6 B-B6 6 K-B5 K-R4 7
White also loses after 4 P-N 7 (instead K-N5 with a draw (cf. the following
of 4 K-B4) 4 B-Q.3 5 P- R5 B-N 1 6
. . . position)
P-R6 P-N3! 7 K-Q4 B-R2+ 8 K-K4
P-N4.
He draws by 1 P-R5! B-B4! (if 7 . . .

B^N5, then 2 P-R6 B~B4 3 K-B4 K-B3

4 K-K4 K-K35 K-B4) 2 P-N6! (but not
2 P-R6? K-B3 3 K-B4 P-N4^ 4 K-K4
K-K3) 2 K-B3 3 K-B4 P-N4+ (or 3
. . .

. P-N3 4 K-K4 K-K3 5 K-B4 B-B7 6

. .

K-B3! B-N8 7 K-B4 - draw) 4 K-K4

K-K3 5 P-N7 B-R2 6 P-R6, and Black
cannot strengthen his position.

Here the white

85: pawns are
blocked, and Black wins easily: 1 . . . V. Chekhover, Shakhmatny Bulletin 1962
B-R4 2 K-Q5 P-N3 (but not 2 .. .

P-N4?3K-K5dind K-B5) 3 K-K5 (or 5 86: This is an instructive example.

K-B6 P-N4 4 P~N6 BxP5KxB P-N5 After B-Q5! White is in
1 ...
6 P-R5 P-N6 7 P-R6 P-N7 8 P-R7 zugzwang. If it is White to move, then 1
P-J^8=Q^, with a win thanks to the K-B5 B-N7 2 K-N5 B-Q5 3 K-N6,
proximity of his king) 3 . . . B-B2-|- 4 and it is Black who is in zugzwang (3
K-Q5 P-N4 5 K-B6 B-R4 etc. . . . K-N3 4 K-B5!).
It should be noted that after 1 . . . The reader can check for himself that
however Black manoeuvres his king, he
The setting for Chekhover’s original study is unable to win. If the king moves over
(1950) was WHITE; K-KN4, P-QR4, P-QN5, to the K-side, then the RP advances,
P-K6; BLACK: K-KN3, B-Ql, P-KN2. Position
84 is reached after the solution P-K7! BxP. 1
ensuring the draw.
 Bishop and Pawn v. Two Pawns 35

87
1 K-N4 (White errs with 1 B-B4
P-B4! 2 K-R4 K-B3, as Black
-/+ exchanges pawns after P-Q^.) 1 . . . . . .

K-N2 K-R5 P-Q4 (2

2 K-B2 3 . . .

K-R6K-(124 K-MP-B45B~B4 K-K3

6 K- B6, etc.) 3 P-B5 K-R2 4 K-N4
K-N2 (4 K-R3 5 K-B3 K-N4 6
. . .

K-Q4 K-N5 7 K-K5 K-B58 K-Q6, etc.)

5 K-B3 K-B2 6 K-Q4 K-Q2 7 K-K5
K-K2 8 B-N5A K-Q2 9 B-B6 K-B2 10
K-K6 K-Bl K-Q6 K-N2 12 K-Q.7, 1 1

V. Chekhover, Shakhmatny Bulletin 1962

etc.

87: If all the pieces in No. 84 are

moved one file to the right, then the 89
result changes. Black wins, with or =1
without the move.
E.g. P-N5 B-B5 2 P-N6 B-Q4 3
1

K-N4 K-N3 4 K-B4 K-B3 5 K-N4

P-R3 6 K-R5 K-N2 7 K-N4 K-N3 8
K-B4 K-B3 9 K-N4 B-N7 10 K-N3
B-Rl 11 K-N4 K-N3 12 K-B4 P-R4
13 K-K5 P-R5 14 K-Q6 {14 K-B4
K-R4) 14 P-R6 15 P-B6 BxP 16
. . .

KxB P-R7 17 P-N7 P-R8=Q^, and G. Walker 1841

Black wins, since the pawn on the
seventh is no longer a RP, but a NP!
89: This position differs very little
88: This position illustrates the
from No. 88. Above all, here Black
winning method without a passed
cannot bypass on both flanks, for no
pawn. White advances his king towards
opening extends through Q4 and K5,
the enemy pawns, while warding off a
e.g., 1 K-Q4 K-R3,
and White cannot
pawn exchange.
avoid the exchange of pawns pursuing
. P-B4 and
. . P-N4. A white pawn
. . .

on QN4 does not alter this condition.

90: The white king cannot easily

close in on the hostile pawns. After the
waiting move 1 B-N7, followed by 1 . . .

2K-K2 (2/r-Q,7P-A(5,draw) 2
. . . K-B4, a king assault proves
meaningless, e.g., 3 B-Rl (The only
possible way of freeing the king and
countering the threat . . . P-N6-N7.) 3
. . . K -N4 4 K-Q3 K-B4 5 K-Q4
An ancient position, 1775 P-B6! (After 5. . . K-N46 K-K4 P-B67
 s

36 Bishop V. Pawns

90 91

Y. Averbakh 1954 Y. Averbakh 1972

K-K3! White wins.) 6 K-K3 K-K4! However, by 1 ... P-B5 2 P-N4

The white king, although closer to the K-Q5! Black can try to keep out the
pawns, has really achieved nothing, enemy king. 3 K-K2 K-B6! 4 B-B5
since 7 BxP PxB 8 KxP K-B4 only K-Q5 K-Q,2 K-B5 6 B-K4
5 K-Q5 7

yields a draw. B-Q3. It seems as if White will be

First White must stop the
of all. successful: the black king must
advance of the black pawns. 1 B-Q7i withdraw. 7 . . . K-K4 8 K-B3. White’s
P_B5Y {1 ... K~B3 2 K-B4) 2 K-K2 bishop has helped his king to make
P-N6 (This clearly forces White’s progress, but in doing so he has lessened

reply.) 3 P-B3 K-Q5 4 B-R3 (Again his control over Black’s passed pawn.
thesame idea; the bishop restrains the Black exploits the saving chance offered
enemy NP, while the king prepares a to him. 8 . . . P-B6 9 K-Q2 K-B5 10
quest for the BP.) 4 . . . K-B6 (Black B-B5 K-N6 11 K-Kl K-N7 12 B-K4
ambush for the white king.) 5
waits in K-N6 etc., with a draw.
B-N2! (The move 5 K-QJ?, followed by Sometimes, only a bishop sacrifice

5 ... K-Q6 6 K-Kl K-K6 7 B-N2 setting up a won pawn endgame can
K-Q6, brings only a draw.) 5 K-B7 . . .
offset the threat to exchange pawns.
6 B-Bl! (Seizing its maximal square,
the white bishop now controls the NP
and deprives the black king of the
square Q6 as well. Black’s scheme ends
in ruins.) 6 . . . K-B6 {6 .. . K-B8 7
K-Q3 K-Q8 8 K~K4, etc.) 7 K-Ql!
K-Q5 8 K-Q2 K-K4 9 K-B3 K-Q4 10
K-Q3 K-K4 K-B4, and White 1 1

wins.
91: Here Black only needs to hesitate,

and the white king will advance, e.g. 1

. . . K-B3? K-K2 K-K4 3 K-Q3

2
K-B3 4 K-Q4 K-N3 5 K-K5 and
wins. V. Neishtadt (?) 1930
 Bishop and Pawn v. Two Pawns 37

92:B-N1+ (Black draws after 1

1 K-R5 K-Bl 11 K-Q6
KxP, etc.) 5
B-N3P-B6! 2PxPP-N5.) .K-N5 1 . . K-N4 6 B-B2 K-R4 7 K-B7 K-N4 8
2 B-Q4 K-N6 (Black finds no salvation B-N6 K-B5 9 K-B6 K-N6 10 B-B5
in 2 K-R5 3 K-Q5! K-N6 4 B-B3
. . . K-B5 11 B-Q6 K-Q5 12 B-R2 (With
P-N5 5 K-Q4! either.) 3 B-B3 P-N5 4 the black pawn on QR3 missing, the
K-Q4!, winning. move 12 K~N5! easily wins for White.
Recall that a position containing a Here, however, the king must hit QN4
RP whose queening square opposes the - a not so simple task.) 12 K-B5 13 . . .

colour of its own bishop defies any B-K5! K-N6 14 B-Q6 K-B5 15 R-B5
general rule. K-Q6 K-Q5 K-B6 17 R-Q6 K-Q6
16
When Black has tw^o RP’s, White 18 B-K5 K-K6 19 K-B4 K-B6 20
suffers immense difficulties winning. B-R2 K-K5 21 B-N3. Finally, White
A study by Rauzer (1936) examines can attack the pawns.
this situation.

Horwitz and Kling 1851

93: The same White task faces 94: A direct king march upon the
whether Black has one or two QRP’s: enemy pawns fails due to White’s
he must keep the black king out of the inability to expel the black king from
drawing zone. Here the inaccessibility QRl. White should first try to

of QN5 complicates the position. stalemate the black king, thus

Black threatens entry into the compelling the advance of the forward
drawing zone with . . . K-N4. The NP and the creation of a passed NP.
natural K-B7 allows K-N4 2
1 1 . . .
Following this he must isolate the black
R-K3 K-B5 3 K-Q6 K-Q6 4 B-Nl king from both pawns and then capture
K-K5 5 K-K6 K-B5 6 K-B6 K-K5 them while simultaneously keeping the
and so forth. black king out of QRl.
White beckons victory with 1 B-K3! This example summarizes a typical
K -N4 2 K-Q7 K-B5 3 K-K6 K-Q_6 4 winning plan in such positions.

B-Nl K-B5 (This move causes White 1B-Q2! (White falls into a draw with
the most problems. If 4 K-K5, then . . .
1 K-Q6? K-R4! 2 K-B5 K-R5 3 B-Bl
5 B-R2 K-B6 6 K-Q5 K~N5 7 K-B5 P~M 4 P-R3 K-R4 5 B-N2 K-R5.) 1

K-B4 8 K-N4 K-K3 9 KxP K-Q^ 10 . . . K-B2 (On 1 ... K-R4 White
38 Bishop V. Pawns

continues 2 P-R3! If 7 . . . K-N2, then 2

K-Q6 K-N3 3 B-Kl K-N2 4 B-R4
K-N3 5 B-Q^+ K-N2 6 B-B7 K-Rl 7
K-B6 K~R2 8 B-Q8 K-Rl 9 K-N6
K-Nl 10 B-B7+ K-Bl 11 K-B6 P-M
12 PxP P-N5 13 B-Q6, etc.) 2 B-N5
K-Q2 3 K-B5 K-B2 4 B-R4 K-Bl 5
K-N6 K-Nl 6 B-N3+ K-Bl (After 6
. K-Rl, White finds 7 B-Q6 P-N6 8
. .

PxP P-N5 9 BxP.) 7 B-B4 K-Q2 8

KxP K-Bl 9 K-B6 K-Ql 10 K-N7
K-Q2 B-Q2 K-Q3 12 BxP+ K-Q4
1 1 Y. Averbakh 1954,
13 P-R4 K-B5 14 P-R5, etc. based on B. Horwitz 1885
Curiously, when Black has only one
pawn this becomes a drawn position. 96: The outcome depends on who
We can even cite several RP moves first.
positions where the defender’s second White to move wins with 1 B-B6!
pawn plays a negative role. In these K-N2 2 B-Q8 K-Bl 3 B-N6 K-N2 4
cases the winning plan basically mimics K-B5 K-Bl (4 P-N55PxPP-R66 . . .

that of No. 93. K-N5 P-R7 7 B-Q^) 5 K-B6 K-Nl 6

B-Q8K-R1! (6^. K-R27 B-B7 K-Rl . .

8 K-N6) 7 K-N6 K-Nl 8 B-B7-f K-Bl

9 K-B6 P-N5 10 PxP.
Black to move rescues his king from
the corner snare, 1 . . . K-Ql 2 B-B6-|-
K-Kl !
(If White tries to win Black’s NP
K-B6 K-B2 4 B-K5
immediately with 3
K-K3 5 B-R2 K-K2 6 KxP K-Q^, the
black king dwells safely within the
drawing zone - see No. 71. So, instead.
White decides to expel the enemy king
from the drawing zone first, and only
G. Walker 1841 then capture the NP.) 3 B-K7 K-B2 4
K-Q7! K-N3 5 K-K6 K-N2 6 B-R4
95: White triumphs with 1 K-Q4 K-Nl 7 K-K7 K-N2 8 B-B6f K-N3 9
K-Q3 K-K4 K-K3 3 K-B4 K-B3 4
2 K-K6! (So, the black king must retreat
B-B5 K-B2 5 K-K5 K-Nl (5 K-K2 . . .
to the rook file.) 9 K-R3 10 K-B5 . . .

6 B-K6 K-Bl 7 K-B5 K-K2 8 B-R2 K-R2 (Of course, not 10 .. . K-R4, as

K-Kl 9 K-M K-Bl 10 B-N3) 6 K-K6 White plays 11 B-JV5.) 11 B-B3 K-Nl
K-Bl 7 B-N6 K-Nl 8 K-K7 K-Rl 9 12 K-K6.
B-B7 P-N4 {9... K-R2 10 K-B8 K-Rl Black need not worry about 12
11 B-N8 P-N4 12 PxP P-R4 13 P-M7 K-B6, chasing the black king into QR 1

mate.) 10 PxP K-N2 11 K-K6 P-R4 for 12 K-Bl! draws. (White creates
. . .

12 K-B5. a stalemate situation after 12 .. K-R2? .

 Bishop and Pawn v. Two Pawns 39

}3B-Q^! K-Nl 14 B-R6K-R2 15B-JV7, K-Q6 27 K-K5 (On 27 B-K3 Black

when Black must lose.) 13 B-N4-|- forces a draw at once with 27 .. . P-N5.)
K-Kl! 14 K-K6 K-Ql 15 B-Q6 K-Bl 27 . . . K-B5 28 B-Q2. White defends
16K-K7. It seems that White has made against 28 P-N5, but Black plays 28
. . .

great progress, but Black draws with 16 . . . P-N5! anyway, and after 29 BxP
. . . P-N5 (Also playable K-N2
is 76“ . . , K-N4, the black king shuttles to QRl.
17K-Q7, and only then 17 .. P-N5 18 . Draw.
PxP K-N3, etc.) 17 PxP K-N2 18 Therefore, we reach the interesting
K-K6 K-B3! {18 .. K-N3? 19 K-Q^l . conclusion that White wins against black
K-N4 20 K-Q4 P-R6 21 K-B3 and pawns on QR5 and 0/74, if he can keep the
wins.) 19 B-K5 K-N4. black king in the corner marked hy(W) QR5,
12. .K-Bl 13B-B6K-N1 14K-K7
.
0/76, 0B7, 08. (See No. 96.)
K-R2 15 K-B7 K-R3 16 B-K7 K-R4!
(The continuation 16 .. K-R2 loses .

after 17 B-B8 or 17 B-N5.) 17 K-B6

K-N5 18 B-Q6 K-B6 19 K-B5 K-K6
20 B-B5-I- K-B6! (A loss succeeds 20 .. .

K-Q6 21 K-K5 K-B5 22 K-Q6 K-M -

22 P-N5 23 BxP K-N4 24 B-B5,
. . .

winning - 23 K-B6 K-B5 24 B-Q6

K-Qp 25 Kx PK-Q4 26 B-R2 K-K3 27
KxP, etc.).

Y. Averbakh 1954

98: Black threatens an immediate

draw with 1 . . . P-R4. Thus, White
proceeds 1 B-R5-|- K-N2 2 K-Q6
K-Bl 3 K-B6 K-Nl 4 K-N6. (Now
Black faces the problem of where to put

Y. Averbakh 1954

Without the QNP, position No.

97:
97 wins for White (No. 68); the QNP
changes this result.

Black continues 23 . . . K-N7 24

K-N4 (After 24 K-K4 K-R6I 25 K-Q4
K-N5 26 B^R2 K-B4 27 K-B5 K-K3 28
KxP K-Q2, Black eventually draws.)
24 . . .K-B7 25 B-Bl K-K7 26 K-B4 Horwitz and Kling 1851
40 Bishop V. Pawns

his king. A loss follows 4 .. . K-Bl? 5 The normal winning idea,

101:

K-R7! K-Q^ 6 KxP K-B3 7 B-M holding back the enemy QP with the
K-Q^! 8 K-N7! K-Q^9 B-R5 K-Q^ 10 bishop and overtaking the enemy
B~B7! K-K3 11 K-B6 K-K2 12 KxP passed pawn with the king, does not
K-Q^ 13 K-N6 K-Bl 14 P-R4.) work here, e.g.,

However, after 4 . . . K-Rl! Black B-Nl P-R5 2 B-B5 P-Q.3 3 B-R3

1

obtains a draw: 5 K-B7 K-R2 6 K-B8 K-Q6 4 B-B1+ K-Q5 5 K-N5 K-B6!,
K-Rl 7 B-N6 P-R4 8 B-B5 P-N5 9 and on 6 K-B6 comes 6 P-R6 7 . . .

BxP P-R5!! K-Q5 (7 KxP P-R7 8 B-N2 KxP) 1

99: 1 P-R4 K-Nl 2 B-K3 K-Rl {2 . P-R7 8 B-N2 K-Q6. Discovering
. .

. . . K-R2? 3 P-R5) 3 P-R7 K-N2 4 that the capture of the QP costs the
K-Q7 K-Rl 5 K-B6 P-N4!, draw. price of the BP, White must accede to a

draw.
Victory heralds the response 1 P-B5!
100
P-R5 PxB 3 P-B6 P-R6
2 B-K6!! 4
=1 P-B7 P-R7 5 P-B8=Q P-R8=Q 6
Q-B3^! K-Q4 7 Q-B5+ K-K5 8
Q-B6-I-, winning the queen.
White has applied a problem-like
solution in order to win. If for one
reason or another the stronger side
cannot realize the above winning plan,
the defending side usually draws, as the
next three examples demonstrate.
Horwitz and Kling 1851

P-R3 K-R3 2 K-B3 K-R4 3

100: 1

K-Q4 K-R3! (After 3 .. K-R5 the .

answer 4 B-JV4! wins.) 4 K-K5 K-N2

5 K-Q6 K-Bl 6 B-N6 P-B4 7 K-B6
P-N5!, draw.

101

Hansen 1951

102: White’s precise king manoeu-

vres evoke a draw. 1 K-K4! (7 K-Q4?
B-B4^ 2 K-K4 B-K6) B-Q7 2 1 . . .

K-Q3! {2K-Q4?B-B83K-K4B-K6) 2
. B-B8 3 K-Q4! R-K6f 4 K-K4
. .

.L. Kayev 1940 K-K2 5 K-B5 B-Q7 6 K-K5 B-B8 7

 Bishop and Pawn v. Two Pawns 41

P-Q6+ (7 K-K4? K-B38 K-Q^ K-B49

!
104: This position originates from an
P-Q6 K-K3 10 K-B5 B-R6-\- and wins) ending to one ofChekhover’s studies. In
1 ... K-Q2 8 K-Q5 B-R6 9 K-K4. order to win Bl^ck must eliminate the
Draw. KRP without losing his own pawn,
In this example a peculiar case of co- something of an impossible task. White
ordinate squares exists between the draws with 1 K-N8! B-B4 2 K-B7
bishop and king. With the black bishop B-K5 3 K-Q6! K-N7 4 K-K5 B-B6 5
on Q7, the white king must enter Q3; K-B4 K-R6 6 K-N5 B-N2 7 K-R5
when the bishop resides on QB8, the B-Bl 8 K-N5, etc.
king must play to Q4, and, finally, if the
bishop enters K6, the king must occupy
K4, so that White can maintain the
proper distance in relation to the
bishop. Consequently, the position
obtained by moving No. 102 up one
rank happens to win for Black.

S. Alapin c. 1907
105:The continuation P-R6 B-Bl 1

2 P-R7 B-N2 3 K-N3 K-N4 4 K-R3

clearly shows that the white king will
not step aside and allow Black to
consume the KRP, as 4 . . . P-R4 5
K-N3 P-R5-|- 6 K-R3 produces
stalemate. Nor does Black get anywhere
Y. Averbakh 1954 by going after the QRP instead: 4 . . .

B-K5 K-N3 K-B4 6 K-R4 K-K4

5 7
103: Thus, 1 K-Q4
K-K5 B-Q6 2
K-R5 K-Q3 8 K-R6 K-B2 9
B-B7 3 K-Q5 B-N8!, and after 4 K-K5
P-R8=QBxQ10 KxP.
B-K5 White loses the QP.

Hansen 1951
42 Bishop V. Pawns

White manages to exchange off

106: B-B2 7 P-B6 PxP+ 8 K-B3 K-K4 9
Black’s only pawn. True, this requires P-B7 B-Q^) 6 BxP 7 P-B4.
precise play. 1 K-R2! (7 K-B2? K-Q4 2
P-N3 P-R63P-N4 BxP4 P-R6 K~B55
P-R7 B^B6) K-B4 2 K-Nl! {2
1 . . .

P-R6? K-N3 3 K-Nl BxP 4 K-B2

B~N2 5 P-N4 K-B4 6 K-Nl B-Bl 7
P-N5 K-K3 8 P-N6 K-Q^, etc.) 2 ...
K-K4 3 K-R2! K-K3! 4 P-R6! (The
only drawing move; if 4 K-Nl, then 4
. K-Q4! 5 K-R2 K-B56 P-R6 K-N57
. .

P-R7 B-N2Nms.) 4 K-B2 5 P-R7! . . .

(Black establishes a won game after 5

K-Nl? BxP 6 K-B2 B-N2 7 P-N4 V. Ganshin (?) 1951
K-K3 8 K-Nl K-Q4 9 K-R2 K-B5 10
K-R3 K-N4.) 5 K-N2 6 K-Nl . . . 108:Again the weaker side draws by
KxP 7 K-B2 B-N2 8 P-N4 K-N3 9 trading off the enemy pawn.
K-Nl! (If K-B4 10
9 P-N5, then 9 .. . 1 . . . K-Q4
B-K8 K-Q5 3 B-N5
2
P-N6 K-K3 11 P-N7 B-K4 12 K-Nl K-B4 {3 .. P-B4? 4 B-R6 K-Q4 5
.

K-Q4 13 K-R2 K-B5 14 K-R3 K-N4 K-N4I K-Q5 6 K-B3 K-Q4 7 K-K3
and Black wins.) 9 B-Bl 10 P-N5 . . . K-Q^8 K-K4 K-K39 Br-B4N K-Q3 10
K-B4 P-N6 K-K3 2 P-N7 B-Q3
1 1 1 1 B-N3 and so on) 4 B-B4 K-Q5 5 B-R6
K-R2 K-Q2 14 P-N8=:Q BxQ. 15 K-Q4 6 K-N4 K-Q51 7 K-B3 P-B3! 8
K-R3. Draw. K-K2 P-K5.
In No. 107 Black cannot avoid the The unfortunate arrangement of the
exchange of his lone pawn. black pieces in No. 109 only affords a
draw.

V. Ganshin (?) 1951

A. Wotava 1935
107: 1 K-N2
K-B2? B^R5+ 2 (7
K-N2 K-K6 3 K-R3 KxP, etc.) 1 . . . 109: 1 K-R5 B-N2 2 P-N4 K-B3 3
K-K6 2 K-N3 B-R5T 3 K-N4(The P-N5-I-! PxP 4 P-N4 B-Rl (Stalemate
move 3 A'x5 loses.) 3 . . . B-Ql 4 P-B5! follows 4 .. . B- Bl.) 5 K-R6! B-N2H- 6
P-N4 5 K-N3 K-Q5 6 P-B6I {6 P-B4? K-R5.
 Bishop and Pawn v. Two Pawns 43

P_R&=Q^ K-K2 [5 ... K-B2 6

Q-R2+ and 7QxB)^ QrR3+ K-Kl 7

P-N7 P-Na=Q.8 P-N8=Q:f K-B2 9

Q.(R)-B8+ and 10 Q-N^f, White
wins.

R. Red 1928
110:The far advanced enemy pawns
negate any winning plans Black may
have.
1 K-B6!! P-R7? K-N2 2 K-K6
(7

KxP 3 K-Q7 B-R4 4 K-K6 K-N3,

winning) 1 B-R4 {1
. . P—B4 2
. . . . R. Red
K- Q5B-B3 3 P- Q7 1 K- K2 4 P-Q^Qjr (end of a study)
KxQ 5 K-K6, draw) 2 K-Q5 B-B6 With
112: 1 P-N6, threatening 2
(Black strains to improve the position of P-R6, White forces Black’s bishop to
his bishop, but it is unable to operate occupy the extremely unfavourable
simultaneously against pawns so far square QBlHe then continues 2 K-B4!
.

advanced.) 3 P-R7! P-B4 4 P-Q7 K-R4 3 K-K5 K-N4 4 K-Q6 K-B3 5

K-K2 5 P-Q8=Q:f! KxQ 6 K-K6! K-B7 B-R6 6 P-R6, etc.
P-B5 7 K-Q5! P-B6 8 K-B4! Draw.
In exceptional cases, involving very
advanced enemy pawns or an
uncooperative king, the bishop alone
cannot cope with passed pawns.

V. Ganshin (?) 1951

113: The misplaced bishop on K3

causes Black to lose, for White wins with

J. Berger 1895 1P-B6 PxP 2 KxB P-B4 3 K-Q6 P-B5

111: After P-R6 B-B7 2 P-N5
1 4 P-K6 P-B6 5 P-K7 P-B7 6
p_N5 3 P-N6 P-N6 4 P-R7 P-N7 5 P-Ka=Q:f.
7 BISHOP AND PAWN V. THREE PAWNS

According to established criteria, a black pawns must be blocked at once,

bishop and pawn equal more than three before they become dangerous, e.g., 2
pawns. Still, the defending side K-B5? P-N4 3 B-(12 P-N5 4 B-Kl
frequently has fine drawing chances, P-B4, and the bishop alone cannot
but the outcome usually depends on the contain the enemy pawns, or 2 B-K3
peculiarities of each position. P-B4! 3 K-B5 P-R5.) 2 P-R5 3 . . .

This chapter begins with the B-Q8 P-N4 4 B-K7 K-N2 5 K-B5
examination of a lone passed pawn v. K-Rl 6 K-B6 K-Nl 7 B-R3 K-Rl 8
connected pawns. K-B7, etc.

Obviously, the result of these types of

positions generally depends on whether
or not the bishop can stop the pawns. If
it White wins; if not, then the
can.
outcome rests on the proximity of the
white king to the pawns. If the king can
support the bishop. White draws; if not,

then White loses.

As we already know, a lone bishop

cannot restrain three connected pawns
placed beyond the fourth rank without
regal assistance. This rule bears full
Y. Averbakh 1954 impact in the current example.

114: White intends to immobilize

Black’s pawns and then advance his
own pawn, so while the king rushes over
to escort the NP, the bishop prepares a
blockade of the black pawns.
1 K-K4 P-R4 (After 1 ... P-N4 2
B-Q^! K-N2 3 K~B5 P-B4 4 B-K3
P-B5 5 B-Q2 or 1 .. P-B4 2 B-N5!
.

P-B5 3 B-QS P-N4 4 B-R5, White

deprives the pawns of all mobility.) 2
B-N5! (Also possible is 2 B-B4. The V. Leonidov, Shakhmaty v SSSR 1974
 !

Bishop and Pawn v. Three Pawns 45

1 115: The game Leonidov P-N7 P-R8-Q7 P-B8=Q.

-Zagovorsky (Voronyezh 1962) was On 2 K-K2? there would follow
. . .

adjourned in the following position: 3 K-N8! K-Q2 (otherwise 4 P-B6) 4

(see diagram 115). P-R4 P-R5 5 P-R5 P-R6 6 P-Bbf
White anticipated an easy draw, e.g. etc.

. P-R5 2 P-B6 P-R6 3 P-B7 P-R7

. . Compared
3 with 2 . . . K-K2, the
{3 .. B-N5 4 P-N6 P-R7 5 P-N7
. move in the game has the advantage
P-RS^d 6 P-B8=Q) 4 P-B8=Q. that it contains a small drop of poison:
However, there was an unpleasant Black gives the impression that he plans
surprise awaiting him. to answer 3 P-N6 with 3 . . . K-Q5?,
1 ... K-B3! after which White draws by 4 P-R4!
It turns out that the black king has P-R5 5 P-R5 P-R6 6 P-R6 P-R7 7
time to join in the fight against the P-N7 P-R 8=0.8 P-N8=Q, whereas in
pawns. Thus after 2 P-B6 K-K2, 3 fact he has in mind the continuation 3
P-B7? loses to 3 . . . K-Q2, while 3 . . . P-R5.
K-N7? is met by 3 K-Q3 4 P-R4 . . . P-R4!
P-R5 5 P-R5 P-R6 6 P-R6 P-R7 7 It is clear that this pawn has no
2
P-R7 P-R8=Q.8 P-R8=QBxP+! 9 intention of becoming a queen. It is
PxB QxP+ 10 K-R7 Q.-B4+ K-R6 1 1 hastening to R6, from where it can
Q,-R6+ 12 K-N7 Q-NSf 13 K-R6 (or support the NP, which proves to be the
13 K-B8 Q^QB5+ 14 K~N7 Q^N4T) 13 most important of the three white
. Q-QR5+ 14 K-N7 Q-NTf 15
.
.
pawns. This is not because it is the
K-R7 {15 K-B8 (h-Q2+ and 16 .. . middle pawn, but because its queening
Q^QB2 mate) K-B2 and mates. 15 . . . square is inaccessible to the enemy
Also, 2 P-N6? fails to 2 P-R5 3 . . . K-N8? would be bad because
bishop. 3
P-N7 BxP+ 4 KxB P-R6 5 P-B6 of 3 K-Q5 4 P-B6 K-B4 5 P-B7
. . .

P-R7 6 P-B7 P-R8=Q;f. Here the B-N5 6 P-R4 K-N3, but 3 P-B6 would
extra pawn at QR2 causes White’s have transposed into the game.
downfall, since it prevents him from 3 . . . P-R5
setting up the well-knoWn stalemate 4 P-B6 K-03
position. What is he to do? But not 4 . . . P-R6? 5 P-B7 B-N5 6
2 K-R7! P-N6 P-R7 7 P-N7 P-R8=0 8
This paradoxical move represents P-Ba=0-
the only way to draw the game. It 5 P-R5
pursues two aims: an obvious one, 5 P-B7? would have been a fatal

which is to bring the king closer to the mistake: 5 . . . KxP 6 P-R5 P-N6T {6
queening squares of his pawns, and a K-B17P-R5B-N2) 6 . . . B-N2 7 P-R6
secret one, of which more later. BxP etc.

. . . K-K4! 5 . . . BxP!
P-R5 3
Black gets nowhere by 2 . . . After 5 . . . P-R6 6 P-B7 the draw is

P-B6P-R6 {3. K-K2??4P-B7B-N5 . . clear.

5 P-N6 P-R6 6 P-N7 P-R7 7 P-B8^ d 6 P-N6!

BxdS PxB=d P-R3=d9 (hN7+ Not, of course, 6 PxB, with the
etc.) 4 P-B7 B-N5 5 P-N6 P-R7 6 tragicomic finish: 6 . . . K-B2! (Black
46 Bishop V. Pawns

also wins by 6^ . . . KxP7 P-R6 K-N4! 8 Here theTlack king enjoys great
116:
K-K7 P-R6 9 P-R7 P-R7 10 P~R8= d activity and threatens 1 ... K-N6,
P-R8— (d{- since he can reach the well winning White’s only pawn.
known position: White K-QN8, 1 B-B2 (White defends against the
Q,-QR8; Black K-QN3, QrQ2) 7 threat. We demonstrate the inferiority
P-R6 P-R6 8 K-R8 P-R7 9 P-R7 of 1 B-R2 later.) 1 . . . K-B5 2 B-Kll
K-Bl 10 P-B7 P-R8 = B mate. K-B4! (Black loses fast after 2 .. K-N5 .

6 . . P-R6
. 3.K-K5 K-R4 4 K-B5 P^B4 5 P-M4^
7 P-R6 P-R7 K-R3 6 B-Q2. White intends to free the
8 P-N7 P-R8=Q, bishop by defending the pawn with
9 P-Na=Q;f K-Q2! the king.) 3 B—N3! (Black’s chances
The white king unexpectedly finds improve 3 K-K3 K-N5 4 K-B2
after
itself in a trap. Some possible P-B4 5 B-R5 P-B5 6 B-B3 K-B5 7
variations: 10 K-N6? Q-KN8-|- 11 B-Q^+ K-N5.) 3 K-K3 (Black . . .

K-R5 QrB4+ etc.; 10 Q,-N6 Q-Rl; 10 cannot allow the bishop to enter the
Q-KN3 Q-R2. However, it is time to square Q6.) 4 B-N8 K-B4 (White
recall one of Bronstein’s instructive threatened to win quickly with 5
comments: ‘The king is restricted, it is P-N4.) 5 B-B7! K-N5 6 B-Q6!
true, but . . . too much so!’ (White’s bishop occupies an ideal
10 Q.-B7+ KxQ square. Now the king can approach his
Stalemate pawn.) 6 K-B4 (If 6"
. . K-R5 7
. . . .

Of course, if Black does not accept K-K3 P-B4, then 8 K-B3 P-B59 B-K5
the sacrifice, the game is still drawn. K-R4 10 etc.) 7 K-K3 K-N5 8
If the lone pawn is not a passed pawn, K-B2 K-B4 (<9 . . . P-Q59 K-K2 K-B4
the winning idea remains identical to 10 K-Q^ K-K3 11 B-B5, etc.) 9 K-B3
that found in ‘bishop and pawn v. two P-Q5 10 P-N44- K-K3 11 B-B5 K-Q4
pawns’ endgames, i.e., the king 12 B-K7 P-B4 13 BxP P-B5 14 B-B6,
captures the enemy pawns and, and White wins. (See No. 81.)
consequently, creates a passed pawn. An initial 1 B-R2 greatly
complicates White’s task, e.g., 1 . . .

K-R5 B-B7 (After 2 B-Q6 K-N5 3

2
K~K3 P-B4 4 K-B2 P~B5 5 B-K5 K-B4
6 B-N7 K-K5, Black’s pawns become
very dangerous.) 2 K-R4! (The . . .

obvious 2 .. K-N5 3 B-Q6! brings

.

White victory.) 3 K-K3 K-N5I 4 K-B2

P-B4 5 B-N6 P-B5 6 B-Q4 K-B5, and
White’s win looks doubtful.
117: The white king needs to
approach the black KP and BP - not so
simple a manoeuvre.
1 K-K2 K-R6
B-N5 K-N6 (2 2 . . .

P~M6 3 K-B3 P-W 4 B-K3 K-R7 5

Y. Averbakh 1954 K-N4 P~M^Q± 6 BxQjr KxB 7
 Bishop and Pawn v. Three Pawns 47

(After 1 . . . P-N6 White plays 2 B-K7

and if / . . . P-R6, then 2 followed
byJ^xP.) 2K-Q3! {2BxP+?K-B53
B-K5 K-N6.) 2 P-N6 3 R-N7! [3 . . .

BxPt K-N44K-B3P-R6,dY2i^) 3 . . .

K-Q4 4 B-B8 K-K4 5 K-B4 K-K5 6

K-N4 P-Q6 7 B-R6, etc.

Once again, a familiar scene: the

bishop holds the passed pawn, while the
king eliminates the remaining pawns.
Bishop and pawn win easily against

G. Walker 1841 tripled pawns, as in the ending ‘bishop

and pawn v. pawn’.
K-N5, etc.) 3 K-K3 K-N7 4 B-R4! As usual, difficulties arise with a RP
K-R6 B-Kl P-N6 (or 5 .. K~R7 6
5 . when the bishop does not control the
K-B4 K-R6 7 B-N3 P-B4 8 PxPe.p. queening square.
P-K4^ 9 KxP) 6 K-B4 P-N7 7 B-B2 After investigating such endgames,
K-R7 8 K-N5 K-R6! 9 K-R5! {9 Rauzer donated the following rule:
K-B6 K-N5 10 Kx P K-B4, draw) 9 . . . ‘With a white pawn on QR3 and
K-R7 10 K-R6! K-R6 11 K-N5! black pawns on QR3, QR4 and QR5,
K-R7 12 K-B6, and White wins. White wins only with the black king cut off
in the corner on KR8 or in the contiguous
area bounded by the diagonal (B ) KR3-QB8
(See diagram.). When the king
occupies any other square, only
exceptional situations end in victory.’
Let us examine No. 119.

A. Batuyev 1940

118: Black threatens to exchange off

White’s only pawn with 1 . . . P-R6.

The logical 1 BxP succumbs to 1 ...
K-N4!, and if 2 B-B8, then not 2 . . .

V. Rauzer 1936
K-B5, due to 3 B-R3 P-Q6 4 K-K3
winning, but 2 ... P-R6!! 3 BxP
K-B5!, reaching the familiar drawn 119: \ ... K-K8 2 K-B2 K-K7 3

position from No. 77. B-Q.2 K-B7 4 K-Q.3! (Not 4 BxP

The win calls for 1 B-B6! K-B4! K-B6, and the black king escapes into
48 Bishop V. Pawns

the drawing zone.) 4 . . . K-B6 5 B-K3

K-N6 6 K-K4 K-N5 7 B-Q.2 K-R5 8
K-B4 K-R4 9 K-B5 K-R5 10 BxP
K-R4 11 B-Q.2! K-R5 12 B-B4 K-R6
(If 12.. . K-R4, then 13 B-N5 P-R4 14
B-Q^ K-R5 15 .fix P yields a previously
analysed position from the chapter
‘Bishop and Pawn v. Pawn’ endings.)
13 K-N5 K-N7 14 K-N4 K-B7 15
B-Bl K-K7 16 K-B4 K-Q6 17 B-K3
K-B5 18 K-K5 K-N6 19 B-B5 K-B5
20 K-Q6, and White wins as seen in G. Zakhodyakin 1932
No. 93.
Some positions hide problem-like As we have already mentioned,
solutions. endgames of this kind hold many
drawing possibilities for the weaker
side.

E. Del Rio 1750

120: A bishop sacrifice comprises the Horwitz and Kling 1851

winning manoeuvre.
B-B3+ K-N8 2 B-Rl! KxB 3
1 122: Here White wins after 1P-N5
K-Bl P-Q44 PxPP-K 5 5P-Q.6P-K6 K-N5 B-N7 K-B5 (2
2 . . . K-R5 3
6 P-Q7 P-K7+ 7 KxP K-N8 8 B-B3) 3 K-R3, as the bishop’s excellent
P-Q8=QP-R8=Q9 Q-Q4+ K-R7 location allows the white king to snare
10 Q-R4+ K-N7 11 Q-N4+ K-R7 12 both black pawns. Black to move first,

K-B2, etc. however, has 1 . . . P-N4!! 2 BxP K-Q5

pawn, White
121: Sacrificing his only 3 B-B6+ K-K5 4 P-N5 K-B4,
constructs a mating net around the preventing White from regrouping, as 5
black king. 1 P-R4! PxP (The move 1 KxP brings 5 . . . P-R8=^Q 6 BxQ
. .K-N3 after 2 BxP allows an easy
. KxP.
win.), and position No. 47 has been 123: White saves himself by
reached, where White mates in four exchanging Black’s only pawn. 1 P-R4
moves after 2 K-B7. K-Q6 2 P-R5! PxP 3 K-R2 KxP 4
 Bishop and Pawn v. Three Pawns 49

P-R6!! (Another bolt!!) 4 . . . PxP 5

K-N4 K-B3+ 6 K-R5 K-N2,
stalemate. A very pretty study.

125

=1

S. Zhigis (?) 1927

K-R3 K-N3 B^B7 5 K-R4 B-Q8,

{4
winning) 4 K-B5 {4 .. K-B4 5
. . . .

K~R4 K-N3 6 P~N4) 5 K-R4 B-N3 6 R. Rtti 1927

P-N4!! (Anyway!) 6 ... PxP.
Stalemate! (Cf. No. 75.) 125: White can win the bishop with 1

A stalemate possibility also rescues K-N8 K-K4 2 P-B8=QBxQ,3 KxB,

White in the next study. but after 3 ... KxP 4 K-Q7 K-K4
Black wins the pawn endgame.
124
A draw results from P-Q6 K-K3
1 2
P-Q7!! KxP 3 K-R7 B-Bl {3... KxP
=1
4 KxB K-Q^ K-K5 K-K4 6 K-B4
5
K-B5 7 K-Q^ KxP 8 K~K2 K-N6 9
K-Bl, draw.) 4 K-N8 B-R3 5 K-R7,
with the already familiar ‘perpetual
pursuit’.
We have seen that very often only the
combined action of the king and bishop
can stop dangerous passed pawns.

A. Gurvich 1927
126

124: White’s position appears /+

hopeless, as the black king threatens an
attack on the white pawns. But White
finds 1 B-B5+ (If /
P-B7! . . . K-K2,
then 2 K-B3 Kx P3 K-N4 K-K24 K-N5
K-Q2 5 P-R6\ therefore, Black intends
to stop the pawn with his bishop and, in
the meantime, send his king to the
queenside.) 2 K-B3 B—R3 3
P-B8 = Q7 t- (Surprise!) 3 . . BxQ, 4
. B. Horwitz 1884
50 Bishop V. Pawns

Consequently, with the king far away

the bishop may prove too weak to
contain the pawns, in which case the
player with the bishop loses.

Let us examine a few such positions.

126: 1 . . . P-B5! 2 K-N6 P-N5!! 3
PxP P-R6 4 B-Nl P-B6 5 K-B5 P-R7
6 BxP P-B7, etc.
‘Bishop V. passed pawns’ endgames
demand precise calculation.

R. Red 1922

The solution begins with 1

128:
K-B5!! (/ K-B4 B-K7!, draw). Now
Black has two possible continuations:
a) 1 . . . B-K7 2 K-B4!! Black stands in
zugzwang. 2 K-N7 3 K-N5 K-B6 4
. . .

P-KR5 K-K6 5 P-R6 B-Qb 6 P-R5.

b) 1K-K6 2 P-QR5 K-QS 3 P-N6
. . .

PxP 4 PxP K-B4. Position No. 23

appears, where White wins after 5
K-B4 B-04 6 K~K5!
Thomas-Flohr, Hastings 1934/5 Generally, a lone bishop can detain
connected pawns, unsupported by the
127: Black sacrificed a piece to obtain king. Supported connected pawns,
this position. however, often prove overpowering.
The game continued: P-Q5 2 1 . . . Examine No. 129.
K-Q6 P-R4 3 P-N4 P-R5 4 P-N5
P-Q6 5 K-K7 P-R6! 6 BxP P-Q7 7
KxP P-Q8 =0,8 B-K7 K-Qf 9 P-N6
0-B6+ 10 B-B6 0-B4 11 P-N7
0-R3+, and White resigned.
Had White been on move, he could
have drawn with P-Q^ 2 1

K-K7 P-R4 3 KxP P-R5 4 P-N4

P-06 5 P-N5 P-R6 6 P-N6 P-R7 7
B-N2 P-07 8 P-N7 P-08=0 9
P-N8=0
As we already know, a bishop alone
loses against far advanced, isolated Charousek-Caro, Berlin 1897
pawns.
Reti presents a good illustration of K-B6 (The most exact, but 7
129: 1

this type of ending in No. 128. P-N5B-N22P-R3! P-R33P-MP-R4

 Bishop and Pawn v. Three Pawns 51

4 P-R4!! also wins. However, 2 P-R4? K-B4 7 P-B7 BxP 8 KxP K-N5 9
only draws after 2 .. . P-R3! 3 P-N6 K-N6.
P~R4, since White finds himself in

zugzwang, e.g., 4 K-B5 K-Q2 5 K-N5

130
K-Q^ 6 KxP K-B4.) K-K2 2 1 . . .

P-N5 K-K3 3 P-R4 K-K4 4 P-R5

K-Q5 5P-N6.
130: White wins because the black
king arrives too late to assist the bishop.
1 K-B6K-B22P-B5B-N5
K-N6! (7

3 K-N6 K-K2 4 P-B6 K-QJ 5 K-N7

B-Q^) K-B2 2 P-B5 K-K2 (2
1 . . . . . .

B-B7 3 KxP BxP 4 K-N5 B-moves 5

P-R5, and wins) K-B7! B-N6-|- 4
3
K-B8! K-K3 5 P-B6 K-Q3 6 K-N7 L. Kubbel 1937
8 ENDGAMES WITH MANY PAWNS

In the previous chapters the endgames Examine No. 131:

featured a bishop working alone or with 131 : White’s material advantage, a
only one pawn. bishop in exchange for two pawns,
In this chapter we shall examine compensates for the doubled pawns.
endgames where two or more pawns Besides, the pawn on KN2 performs a
accompany the bishop. very valuable task, controlling the KB3
We have no intention here of square and preventing the black king
presenting an exhaustive analysis of all from attacking the pawn on KN3.
the basic situations. We will only show a White must create a passed pawn by
few typical positions illustrating the winning Black’s KNP and then, with
various methods of attack and defence the king, escort a pawn to the queening
in endgames with many pawns. square.However, the dangerous black
The fundamental endgame prin- pawns refute a direct follow up of this
ciples and the methods of attack and idea, e.g.,

defence expounded in previous 1 K-Q3 K-K4 2 K-K3 P-Q4 and

chapters involving bishop v. pawns also the white king cannot penetrate to
apply here. KB4, as Black can answer 3 B-N24-
In the course of analysing the with 3 . . . P-Q5+ 4 K-Q3 K-Q4.
examples we will note the specific Therefore, White executes a typical
features associated exclusively with plan for these situations, which includes
multiple pawn endgames. the following steps:
1) By threatening to capture the KNP
with his king. White impels P-Q4, . . .

weakening Black’s pawn on B4;

2) Attacking the forward BP with his

bishop. White forces . . . P-B5,

permitting his king access to Black’s
queenside pawns;
3) White wins one of the queenside
pawns, taking care not to let the now
centralized black king liquidate
White’s primary reserve, the pawn on
KN3;
Y. Averbakh 1954 4) Upon harnessing the remaining
 Endgames with many Pawns 53

black pawns, White marches his king to Bad is 1 2 K-B5?, as Black draws with
the kingside and captures Black’s 12 . . . K-K4 13 KxP K-K5 14 B-R5
KNP; K-K6 15 KxP K-B7 16 B-B7 P-B6 17
5)Having won the KNP, White’s king K-K4P-B7 18B-B4P-B8=Q,19 BxQ
and bishop repulse Black’s final KxP.
attempt at counterattack - the advance 12 . . . K-B4
of his two pawns, supported by the king. 13 B-Q6! K-K3
1 B-B4 K-K3 14 K-B5!
2 K-Q3 K-Q4 Now is the time!
3 K-B3! K-K3 A. 14 B-B4 K-B4 16. . . P-B6 15
After 3 . . . P-B5 White wins the K-Q41 {16KxP??P-Qpl7K-Q5P-Q6,
pawn by 4 K-N4, e.g., 4 P-B4H-5 . . . winning) 16 ... P-B7 17 K-Q3 (77
K-B3 K-B3 6 KxP P-Q4+ 7 K-B3 K-K3 18 K-B5? K-K4 19 KxP
K-N4 8 B-Q6 K-B3 9 B-K7 K-N4 10 K-Qp! 20 K-Q6 K-B5 21 K-K5P-Q522
B-B8 K-B3 11 K-Q3 (The king now K-K4 K-B6! 23 K-B4 K~Q6 24 K-K5
proceeds toward the KNP.) 11 . . . K-K7! 25 KxP K-B7, draw) 17 . . .

K-N4 12 K-K3 K-B5 13 K-B4 P-Q5 P-B4 18 KxP K-K5 19 K-B3 P-B5 20
14 KxP K-Q4 15 K-B3 P-B5 16 P-N4 B-Bl K-K4 21 R-Q2 K-K5 22 B-B4
P-B6 7 B-N7 K-B5 18 K-K4 P-Q6 19
1 K-B4 23 K-Q4 K-K3 24 B-N8, and
K-K3, and White wins. wins.
Or Black can try 4 K-Q5 5 BxP . . . K-B4 15 KxP K-K5 {15
B. 14 . . .

P-B6 6 K-N3 K-Q6 7 B-K5 P-B7 8 . P~Q5 16 K-Q5 P-Q6 17 B-M) 16

. .

B-B4 P-B4 9 K-N2 P-B5 10 B-Bl K-B5 P-B6 {16... K-K6 17 KxP P~B6
P-B6+ llK-N3K-K7 12KxP/7,etc. 18 K~K5! P-B7 19 B-R3 K-B7 20 K-B4)
4 K-B4 K-K2 17 B-B4 P-B7 18 B-Bl K-Q6 19 KxP
5 K-Q3 K-K3 K-K7 20 K-K4 K-B7 21 K-B4, etc.

6 K-K4 P-QTf Without the pawn on KN2, Black

Black has put up a lengthy resistance easily draws, in the last variation, for

but at last must make this move, for 6 example, with 17 K-B6 . . . 18 KxP
. . . K-K2 7 K-B5 only simplifies P-B7 19 K-K5 P-B8=Q, 20 BxQ
White’s task. KxP.
7 K-Q3 K-K2 Transfer, now. Black’s pawn on KN5
Black tries to avoid further to KN4 and note how this affects the

weakening his pawns and opposes the result.

move B-Q6. 132: In the last example. Black’s

8 B-N8 K-K3 attack centred around the white pawn
9 B-R7 K-Q3 on KN3. White, in turn, concentrated

10 B-N6 P-B5+ on protecting this pawn. The above

11 K-Q4 position increases Black’s counter-
His king has the vulnerable black chances, as he can attack KN3 directly.
pawns in full sight, yet White still must These factors notwithstanding, White
play very accurately to win. manages to overcome Black’s re-

11 . . . K-K3 sistance. The author’s solution follows.

12 B-B7! 1 B-K3 K-N5
54 Bishop V. Pawns

132

4-

A. Havasi 1937 D. Hodess, Shakhmatny Bulletin 1959

2 B-B2 K-B4 133: 1 K-N2!(Not B-B3 P-N4 2

/

3 B-Nl!! B-R5 P-N5 3 B-M P-R6 4 K-N3

A. 3 . . . K-N5 4 B-R2! (The bishop P-B5^ 5 K-R2 K-B3 6 B^R7 K-N4 7
manoeuvres to its prime location.) 4 . . . B-N8 K-R5 8 BxP P-B6, when it is
K-B4 P-N4+! K-K3 6 B-N3 K-K2
5 Black who wins!) 1 .P-N4 2 K-R3
. .

7 B-Kl K-K3 8 B-Q2 K-B3 9 P-N3! K-K3 3 B-N2 K-Q3 4 B-Bl K-B3 5
(Now Black has two weaknesses, the B-Q2 K-N3 6 B-Kl K-B2 7 B-R5+!
KNP and the QP, making the rest easy. The bishop has at last penetrated into
White’s last move deflects the black the enemy position. 7 K-B3 8 B-Q8
. . .

king even further.) 9 K-N3

. . . 10 K-Q2 9 B-N6 K-B3 10 B-R7 K-Q3 1

B-R5 K-B3 11 B-Q8+ K-N3 12 B-N8-f K-K3 12 B-B7 K-B3 13 B-N6

B-K7. Now the black pawns fall one P-B5 14 K-N4, and White wins.
after another. In the two previous examples Black
The author failed to mention, has had no serious counter-play. In the
however, this other continuation that following position the bishop has to
also wins for White: combine attack and defence.
B. 3K-K5! 4 P-N4 P-Q4+! 5
. . .

KxP K-B5 6 K-Q4 [6 KxP KxP 7

3~B2 P-Qp 8 K-QP P-Q6, draw) 6 . . .

KxP(After^. K-N67 K-K5 KxPI2 . .

8 B-N6 K-B6 9 K-B5, White wins the

NP.), reaching No. 116, a win for
White.
Lastly, 3 . . . P-N5 4 R-K3 leads to
the previous position.
The concluding part of Havasi’s
study -the attack by the bishop on
different pawns in turn -is the main
theme of the following position by
Hodess. D. Hodess, Shakhmatny Bulletin 1959
 5 N

Endgames with many Pawns 55

134: The winning plan consists of two with the bishop unable to realize its

steps: a) immobilize the black pawns; advantage, due to the ‘fortress’

b) carry out the deciding bishop constructed around the enemy king,
manoeuvre. any attempts to dislodge him merely
K-Kl K-B3 2 B-R3 (Not 2 B-K4?
1 leading to stalemate. Clearly, many
P-B7 3 K-Q2 P-B6y 4 K~B1 P-B5, and pawns may be a disadvantage, as their
it is White who is in zugzwang.) 2 . . . mobility can frustrate the creation of a
K-K2 K-Ql! (But not 3 B-M4? in
3 stalemate position.
view of 5 P-B7 4 K-Q^ P-B&y 5 . . . Examine diagram No. 136.
K-Bl K-B26B-R3K-B3.) 3 K-B3 . . .

4 B-N4! P-B7+ 5 K-Bl P-B 6 6 B-R3

K-K2 7 B-Bl! (White gains an
important tempo.) 7 . . . P-B5 (Now
that the black pawns have been
immobilized, the deciding bishop
manoeuvre follows.) 8 B— 2 ! K-B3 9
B-K4 K-K 2 10 B-Q5 K-B3 11 B-K 6 !,

and Black is in zugzwang.

Horwitz and Kling 1851

136:Were Black’s K-side pawns

absent, a draw would follow B-Q5 1

K-Rl 2 K-B7, stalemate, and B-B4 1

K-Rl 2 BxP PxB!, a drawn king and

pawn endgame. Thus, 1 BxP??
becomes a mistake, on account of 1 . . .

P-N6 2 R-K4 P-N7.

Bondarenko-Ostrovsky,
But 1 K-Q7 wins. 1 . . . P-N6 (Or
Black can transpose moves with / . . .
Stalinogorsk 1949
P-B52BxPP-B6 3 B-R3! P-B7 4 B-Bl
135: Black threatens, after 1 ... K-Rl 5 BxP, etc., as in the main
P-N 64 - 2 PxP PxP+ 3 KxP KxP, to variation.) 2 B-Q5 P-B5 B-B3 P-N73
exchange off all the pawns. Precise play 4 BxP P-B6 5 B-Bl P-B7 6 K-Q8
rewards White with victory. K-Rl 7 BxP!! K-Nl (After 7 PxB . . .

1 B-B5! (White parries both threats.) 8 K-B7 White mates in two moves.) 8
1 . . . K-N 2 2 B-K 6 KxP ! 3 B-N3! B-Bl K-Rl 9 B-N2 K-Ni 10 K-Q7
PxB P-R6 4 B- B4 K-B4 5 K-N3
( . . .
K-Rl 11K-B7 P-B8 = Q12 BxP mate.
K-K56KX P, etc.) 4 KxP K-B3 5 KxP With RP and bishop of the wrong
K-K3 6 KxP, with a won king and colour, again superfluous pawns may
pawn endgame. prove by closing
troublesome off

More than once we have seen the side various key squares from the king.
56 Bishop . Pawns

No. 137 presents a typical formation.

O. Duras 1923

A. Herbstmann 1928 the KB3 and KB4 squares.) 3 K-K4 . . .

4 P-R5 K-K3 5 B-Q5+ (The bishop

137: The white king watches from continually harries the black king.) 5
afar as the black king attacks the pawns. . . . K-K2 6 P-R6 K-Bl 7 K-Q2 P-B5
It seems that Black can easily draw. 8 K xP, winning.
However, White produces a problem-
like win, commencing:

1 P-N6 PxP 2 P-R6! K-B3 3 B-K7!!

[3 BxP? P-N4 4 B-B5 P-N5! 5 K-Q^

P~N6! 6 K-B3 K-B2 7 B-R7 K-B3,
draw.) 3 K-B2 (In obstructing the
. . .

QN3 square. Black’s QNP exudes a

negative force. Nor does 3 .. . P-N4 4
B-Q8 P-M55 K-Q^ P-Q^6 K- Q4 P~ M6
7 K-B3 heal Black’s condition.) 4
BxP+! K-B3 5 K-Q3 P-N4 6 B-B5
K-B2 7 B-R7 K-B3 8 K-B3, etc.
We shall feature yet another example
of this theme. Alekhine-Tylor, Nottingham 1936
138: Besides retaining only one pawn
for the piece. Black is burdened with 139: In order to win White must
doubled KB pawns. Still, on the avoid aRP endgame, so he continues 1

brighter side, he threatens to win B-K8! K-K4 2 P-R5 K-B3 {2. .PxP .

White’s BP and march his king into 3 BxP) 3 PxP PxP 4 B-Q7 and so
KRl. How can White counter this forth.

venture? 140: The first impression is that it is

1 B-N2! K-K6 2 P-R4 KxP 3 B-B3! time for Black to resign, as he has only
(White loses the BP, but intends to keep one pawn for the piece. However, the
the black king from reaching KRl. path to victory is not nearly as simple as
Black’s doubled pawns play a it may appear. 1 1 only requires White to
significant role throughout by blocking play 1 K-K3 K-K4 2 B-N5, where-
 Endgames with many Pawns 57

by setting up mate threats. Examine the

140
following study.
+/

Portisch-Stein, Sousse 1967

Y. Averbakh 1972

upon after 2 . . . P-B4 3 B-Q_3 P-N4 4 V. Lomov 1934

K-B3 P-B5! 5 P-N4 P-R4! a
noteworthy position is reached where 141: To win after 1 P-R7H- K-Rl,
he can no longer win. Here are the main the white bishop must attack QN7
variations; before pawns can queen. 2
Black’s
a) PxP K-B3 7 P-R6 K-B2 8 B-R7
6 B-N5! P-N6 (Otherwise, White plays 3
K-B3 9 K-N4 K-B2 10 KxP P-B6, .fix T and 4 B-B8.) 3 B-Bl P-K4! (The

and the black king reaches the saving only move; '\^ 3 .. P~Q4, then 4 B-N2 .

corner . . , KRl. P-B55 B-B3 and eventually Black must

b) 6 B-N6 PxP+PxP, and we have 7 push P-K4.) 4 B-R3! {4 B-N2?
. . .

reached the drawn position after P~K5 5 B-R3 P-Q^ 6 B^N2 P~Q5 7
White’s 2nd move in No. 91. B-R3P-Q68BxPP-M7)4. .P-K5 {4 .

None of this occurred in the game, . ..P-Q4 5 B-JV2 P-K5 6 B-R8, etc.) 5
however, as White won an important B-N2! (5 B-Nl? P-B5 6 B-N2 P-B6) 5
tempo by the fine move B-K8! There 1 . .P-C13 6 B-Bl P-Q4 7 B-R3 P-Q5
.

followed K-K2 2 B-N5 P-B4 3

1 . . . (The pawn intercepts own
his

K-K3 K-B3 4 K-Q4 P-R4 (Black QR2-KN8 diagonal.) 8 BxP! P-N7 9

could probably have posed more B-B8 P-N8 = Q_ 10 BxP mate.
problems by 4 . . . K-N4 5 K-K5 P-R4. We already know that a bishop
In this case White would have had to draws against three pawns that have
find the solitary but very pretty not advanced very far. The same
K-N5 7
winning method; 6 P-R4-}-!! proviso applies with many pawns.
K-B6! KxP 8 K-N5 P-B59 B~K8 P-B6 Position No. 142 gives an example.
10 BxP P-B7 11 B-Q^ K-R6 12 B~K2 142: 1 K-B6 K-K5 2 KxP BxP 3
K-N6 13 B-BL) 5 K-K3 P-R5 6 P-N4 P-R4 K-Q4 (Seriously oUt-of-line
K-K4 7 B-Bl K-B3 8 K-B4 P-N4+ 9 would be J . . . K-K6 4 P-R5 K-B7 5
K-K3 K-K4 10 B-R6, and Black P-B5 KxP
6 P-B6 KxP 7 P-R6,
resigned. queening one of the pawns.) 4 P-R5
In exceptional cases the side with the K-K3 (Black loses after 4 .. . K-B4 5
bishop spites a material deficit and wins K-Q7 K-M76P-B5 KxP7P-B6 K-N5
5a Bishop V. Pawns V

White draws in spite of being

143: So,
a piece down.
1 P-N6 K-Q3 2 K-B8! B-N7 3 K-B7

B-Rl 4 K-N8 B-B3 5 K-B7, draw. In

order to push the QP Black must cut off
the bishop’s diagonal.
In the next example White draws by
arranging a stalemate situation.

Fine-Kevitz 1936

8 K~K7.) 5 K-N7 B-QH-! 6 K-B7

(The move 6 K-N6 K-Q^7 P-R6 Bx P8
P-R7 B-B3 also draws.) 6 . . . B-B5 7

K-N7, draw.
Note the by the doubled
role played
pawns. Were there no white pawn on
KN2, Black would win with 1 K-B6
BxP 2 KxP K-K5 3 P-R4 K-B6! 4
P-B5 KxP 5 P-B6 K-B5 6 P-R5 K-K4
7 P-R6 KxP 8 P-R7 B-Q4, etc. 144 : 1 K-Ql K-K6 K-Kl B-N6+
2
In rare cases, the realization of even a 3K-Ql K-B7 4 K-Bl K-K7 5 K-Nl
full piece advantage proves impossible, K-Q7 6 K-Rl. Draw.
due either to a poor disposition offerees With both rook pawns off the board,
or an excellent deployment of the however, threats of stalemate disappear
enemy king or pawns, which and White loses. (Fine mistakenly
completely compensates for the lack of claimed the position to be drawn also.)
material.

R. Red 1928 Pape-Roth,

(end of a study) Chess Life & Review 1975
 Endgames with many Pawns 59

145: If we did not know that the bishop does have the capacity to stop
following position arose in an actual three connected pawns abiding on their
game in West Germany, we would original squares, but can it also take
praise it as a nice endgame KBl away from the black king, forcing
composition. the white king’s release from captivity?
1 P-Q6!! PxP 2 K-Q3!! BxP 3 P-R5
P-Q4 4 P-R6 B-Nl 5 P-R7! BxP.
Stalemate!

Y. Averbakh 1954

Z. Birnov 1928
B-N3 (Strongest; after 1 B-B2
1

P-R4 2 B-B5 P-N4! 3 B-K7 P-N5!,

146: Combined with the poor White’s best continuation, 4 BxP!,
location of the black king, White’s concedes the draw.) 1 . . . P-B4 2 B-B2
strong passed pawn suffices for a draw. P-N3 3 B-N3 P-B5! 4 B-K5 (Or 4
1 P-R6 BxP 2 P-K4-|-!1 (The saving B-M P-B6 5 BxP?? P-B7. Both 4 ...
move; White attracts the black king to P-N4 5 B-B3 and 4 P-R4 5 B^B7 . . .

the bishop’s diagonal.) 2 . . . KxP 3 lose.) 4 K-Bl 5 B-Q6+ K-B2

. . .

P-R7 B-Q4 4 P-B4! (White reduces the Draw, for 6 B-N4 allows 6 P-R4 7 . . .

bishop’s scope even further.) 4 . . .

B-B3 P-R5 8 B— N4 P-N4, obliging
B-Rl 5 K-N8 B-B3 6 K-B7, ending White to seek salvation in stalemate.

with the well-known ‘perpetual An advanced passed pawn may

pursuit’. prove stronger than a bishop, especially
Blockading the enemy pawns turns if the bishop receives no assistance from
into aproblem when the offensive king the king. This holds true even in

cannot arrive in time, and the bishop endgames with many pawns.
must fight alone against the enemy Pertinent tactical motifs in the
pawns. struggle between a passed pawn and a
Examine No. 147. bishop include cutting off the bishop’s
diagonal, limiting its range of power,
147: Black has only one pawn for the blockade and deflection. Troitsky’s
bishop, but the white king operates study presents a classic example of
uselessly in the corner. True, a lone interception and blocPade.
 A. Troitsky 1924 A. Sokolskv 1927

148: 1 P-B6! (Interception.) 1 , . . 150: Thus, after 1 P-R6 K-K6 2

PxP/6 P-R6 P-Q7+ (2
2 B-K5 3 . . .
K-N2 B-Q6, White unexpectedly
P-Q^! BFxP 4 PxP B-R8 5 P-Q4) 3 plays3P-B4!!KxP(J. ..PxP4K~B3!
KxPB-K5 4P-Q5!BxP(^. .PxP . K-B6 5 P-Q5! PxP 6 P-N5 K-K6 7
K-K3! B-R8 6 K-Q4) 5 P-B4! B-R8 6 P-M PxP8PxPP-Q5^9K-N4 P-B6
P-B5. A magnificent study! 10 P-M P-B7 11 P-N8= (IP-B8== (112
(^B4~\-, winning) 4 P-N5! BPxP 5
PxNP K-B4 6 PxP K-B3 7 K-B3
B-R2 8 K-Q4 B-N8 9 K-K5 B-R2 10
P-N4 B-N8 11 P-N5 B-R2 12 K-B6
P-Q5 13 P-N6 BxP 14 KxB P-Q6 15
P-QR7! K-N2 16 P-R7 P-Q7 17
P-KR8=Q P-Q8=Q, 18 P-R8=:Q
mate.

G. Zakhodyakin 1929

149: A familiar theme: White

sacrifices a pawn to limit the scope of
the bishop. After P-B7 KxBP 2
1

P-N6!! PxP 3 P-Q7 B-B2 4 K-N7

B-Ql 5 K-B8, White wins.
A bishop can quiet an enemy passed
pawn, but if the threat of forming Shamkovich-Spassky,
another passed pawn deflects the 29th USSR Championship 1961
bishop, who, in turn has no support
from the king, the pawns overpower the 151: In this sharp position Black lost a
piece. vital tempo by 1 . . . B-N2?, and had to
 1 ,

Endgames with many Pawns 61

resign after 2 P-R5 K-K4 P-N4

3 P-R6 B-R7 3 PxP PxP 4 P-R7 B-Q4
K-B4 4 KxP B-B3 5 K-Q4 K-B3 6 5 K-K2 P -K4, and Black wins.
P-R6 K-N3 7 K-K5, since his king 2 P-Q6 K-Bl
reaches the Q-side too late. He could 3 P-N3! P-B5?
have drawn by 1 ... B-Rl!, the point And this move actually loses. After 3
being that White does not gain a tempo . . . PxP+ 4 KxP K-Kl 5 P-R4 K-Q2
by attacking the bishop when his king 6 P-R5 KxP 7 P-KR6 P-B5+! 8 KxP
reaches QB7; e.g. 2 P-R5 K-K4 3 KxP P-B3 9 K-K3 B-B4 10 P-R6 K-B3 11
K-B4 4 K-Q4 K-N4 5 K-K5 KxP 6 P-QR7 K-N2 12 K-Q4 KxP 13 K-B5
p_N4 K-N3 7 K-K6 P-B3 8 K-Q7 K-N2 14 K-Q6 K-N3 15 K-K7 K-B4
K-B2 9 K-B7 K-K2 10 K-N8 K-Ql 1 16 K X P K-Q3 7 P-B4 K-Q4 8 K-B 7 1 1

KxB K-Bl 12 P-N5 PxP. Stalemate. thegame ends in a draw, as Black has no
Against three far advanced pawns, a way of strengthening his position.
bishop, even working together with the 4 PxRP K-Kl
king, loses. Examine No. 152. 5K-Kl!
1
F rom Q6 the bishop operates on two
diagonals; it must be ousted from this

post.
White could still err with 5 P-R5
K-Q2 6 P-KR6 KxP 7 P-R6 K-B3,
handing Black the win.
5 . . . P-K4
6 K-Q.2 P-K5
7 P-R5 B-N8
8 P-R6
bringing victory to White.
1 1 is generally accepted that a bishop

Ilyin-Zhenevsky — Masoedov, equals three pawns, but actually the

Leningrad 1932 location of the bishop and the pawns

may increase or decrease the value of
White scans a hopeless situation.
152: the piece.
To win Black need only improve the
position of the bishop and centralize his 153
king. White submits his final prospect: +
P-Q5!
Insufficient is 1 K-K3 B-R7 2 K-B4
P-B3 3P-R6 B-Q4 4 P-N3 PxP 5
KxP P-K4 6 PxP PxP 7 K-R4 P-K5
8 PxP PxP, which Black wins.
1 . . . B-Q6?
A superficial move that throws away
the win. Black should have foreseen the
potential creation of another passed Capablanca-Lasker,
pawn with . . . P-B5!, for example: 2 New York 1924
62 Bishop V. Pawns

153: White has three pawns for the lose.) P-K6'^ K-B2 K-K5 7
5 . . .

bishop, whereas Black suffers a weak B-K5 K-B6 8 K-Ql K-B7 9 B-Q4
KP and a comparatively inept king K-B6. Draw.
situation. The positional advantage Such configurations have not been
proves fully sufficient for victory. studied in detail, and so it is of interest
1 p_N4 P-R3 2 K-N4 (White to see what the result will be for

reinforces his position by posting a different placings of the pawn mass.

pawn on KB5.) 2 . . . B-B5 3 P-B5 It is clear that if the position is moved
B-N6 4 K-B4 B-B7 5 K-K5 K-B2 6 towards the white side of the board, this

P-R4! K-N2 (Nor does 6 .. . BxP 7 is to Black’s advantage, while if it is

/TxP acquit P-Q5 BxP (Or 7

Black.) 7 moved towards the black side, then
. . . PxP 8 KxP BxP 9 KxP, and the Black has additional drawing chances
three connected passed pawns on the since a refuge appears for his king on the
fifth rank also win.) 8 P-Q6 P-B4 9 back rank. If the position is moved to

PxP B-B3 10 K-K6 P-R4 11 P-B6+. the right, the assessment does not
Black resigns. change.
It is worthwhile comparing this

position with No. 91, where a similar

blocked situation arises with one pawn

against two.

A. Utyatsky,
Shakhmatny Bulletin 1969

154: This position could have arisen

in game Utyatsky-Zhitenev,
the A. Utyatsky,
Moscow 1963. The value of White’s Shakhmatny Bulletin 1969
extra piece is reduced by the fact that
his pawns are badly placed. Besides, the 155: Here White has the additional
black king occupies an active post, and possibility of penetrating with his king
cannot easily be driven away. to the right of the pawn mass. This
The following is a possible variation: proves to be enough to win, though the
1B-Q4 K-B5 2 B-N7 K-N6 3 B-B3 play is not without certain subtleties.
K-B5 (5. P-K6+??4 K-Q^)
. . 4 K-B2 B-R6 K-N5 2 K-Q2 K-R4 3 B-B8
1

K-Q4 5 K-N3 (Now Black must start a K-N5 4 K-K2 K-B6 5 B-R6 K-B7 6
counter-attack, since after 5 . . . K-B4 6 B-N5! K-B6 7 K-B3, or 4 K-B5 5 . . .

B-K5 K-Q^ 7 K-B3 he will gradually B-R6+ K-N6 6 K-B3 K-B6 7 B-N5.
 Endgames with many Pawns 63

It is curious that White can force the

157
win only with his pieces placed as in
Diag, 155. (It is suggested that the +
reader should prove this for himself).
To illustrate this we give the following
example.

Shumov-Chigorin,
St. Petersburg 1874

1 . . . B-R2 2 P-R6 B-Nl 3 P-R5

P-N3! 4 P-R6! (White avoids a subtle
trap. U4 PxP? PxP 5 P-N3, then 5 . . .

A. Utyatsky,
Shakhmatny Bulletin 1969
K-Kia 6 K-K7 B^R2!! 7 KxB K-B2,
incarcerating the white king.) 4 . . .

156: 1 . B-Qj
. . K-B5! 2 K-N4 [2 B-R2 KxP K-Kl Here the easiest
5
K-B6) 2 P-Q6 3 K-B3 {3 K-R5
. . . win goes 6 KxQP K-Q2 7 K-K5
K-Q5 4 K-N6 KxP 5 KxP K-Q5 6 K-K2 P-Q5 B-N3 9 P-Q6+ K-B2
8
K-N5 P-K5 7 K-B4 P-K6 8 K-B3 10 P-Q7 K-K2 11 P-Q8=Q,+ KxQ !

K-K4) 3 K-Q5 4 B-B6 (otherwise 4

. . . 12 K-B6 B-R2 13 K-N7 K-K2 14
. P-QJ) 4
. . K-B4. The only move, . . . KxB K-B2 15 P-N3, etc.
but it is sufficient to draw; e.g. 5 B-N7 Infrequently, a bishop will be unable
K-Q5 6 K-B2 K-B6 7 B-B6 K-Q5 8 to stop a passed pawn from promoting,
K-Kl K-K6 9 K-Ql P-Q.7, or 6 B-R6 but the possibility for a draw lingers on
F-QJ 1 K-K2 KxP 8 B-B8 K-B5 9 when the new queen cannot function
KxP P-K5 10 K-K2 P-K6 11 B-K6 effectively.

K-K5 12 B-Q7 K-B5 13 K-Q3 K-B6

14 B-K8 P-K7 15 B-R5+ K-B5.
Thus White cannot win after 2
K-N4. He must therefore play 2 K-K2
so as to reach the winning piece
arrangement given earlier.

157: The confinement of the black

king and bishop negates the material
advantage.
Despite Black’s clear material
advantage (bishop for pawn), after 1

K-B6 he cannot cope with the

situation. V. Chekhover 1947
64 Bishop V. Pawns

158: White loses if he chases after the In spite of BlackV enormous material
passed QRP with his king: 1 K-Q2 advantage in 158, he cannot win. An
K-N3 2 K-B3 K-N4 3 B-R2 P-N8 = Q, astonishing position!
4 BxQ,K-B5. Conversely, in the next two situations
But by erecting a fortress he can White draws by isolating the black
draw: 1 P-B3!! P-R5 2 K-B2!! P-R6 3 king.
K-N3 P-R7 4 KxP P-R8 = Q5 KxP 159: In the first study White draws
and a simple proof reveals that the with P-N5+ K-R2 2 B-B7 P-B7
1 3
black king has no invasion square on K-R5! P-B8=Q,4 P-N6+ K-Rl 5
either flank, e.g., 5 . .
.
Q,-N7+ 6 B-B2 K-N4. The black king remains out of
K-N3 7 K-N3 Q-Qy 8 K-N2 K-N4 9 play, and the queen alone cannot mate
K-N3 Q,-B8 10 B-R7 (The only move; the white king.
the black king cannot break through on 160: And in the second White
KB5 nor on QR2.) 10 Q-KBS-t- . .
. 11 discovers 1 B-N4!! P-K8 = Q (7 . . .

K-N2 K-R4 12 B-B2 QrN4-f 13 KxB 2 P-B3i- and 3 K-B2, draw) 2

K-R2. Draw. P-R3.

159 160

=/

G. Zakhodyakin 1929 \ . Chckhovcr 1952

Part II: Bishops of the Same Colour

9 BISHOP AND PAWN V. BISHOP

The outcome of this particular P-Q7; but Black does have a saving
endgame depends on whether the move in 2 ... B-Q^l, after which 3
weaker side can stop the pawn. B-B5 K-Kl draws.
White can try a bypassing
manoeuvre to QB7. If, then. Black
plays passively, i.e.,K-K5 B-Q2 3
2
K-Q5 B-R5 4 K-B5 B-Q2 5 K-N6
B-R5 (Also ineffective is 5 B-B4, . . .

when White continues 6 K-B7 B~R6 7

B-B3, 8 B~N7 and 9 B-B8, evicting
Black’s bishop from the QB1-KR6
diagonal.) 6 K-B7 B-N4, his position

disintegrates.

161: Black to move draws with 1 , . .

K-Kl! and 2 . . . K-Ql ,

staving off the
advance of the white pawn.
Situations of this type where the
defending king can occupy the square 162:White queens with 7 B-B3 B-R5
in front of the pawn and from there 8 B-B6 BxB 9 KxB K-Kl 10 K-B7.
remain invulnerable to checks by the It becomes apparent that the
enemy bishop, we shall call basic drawing defending bishop unaided by the king
position No. 1. cannot arrest the enemy pawn, since
White to move can play 1 B-R5, the stronger side has a typical
preventing the black king from using manoeuvi'e for intercepting or
Kl. dislodging the bishop.
1 ... B—R6 (Actually any bishop Positions where the weaker side
move along the K1-QR5 diagonal cannot sustain his king on an
works. [Except 7 . . . B-Kl?? 2 BxB unassailable square in front of the pawn
KxB 3 Now 2 B-N6
A'-A'6-Kaplan.]) nor co-ordinate his king and bishop
B-N5? loses to 3 B-B5 BxB 4 KxB against a pawn advance, we shall term
K-B2 5 K-K5 K-Kl 6 K-K6 K-Ql 7 basic winning position No. 1.
66 Bishops of the Same Colour

But maybe the black king can thwart Black’s reserve tempo eventually leads
the interception of his bishop’s to the second basic drawn position: 3
diagonal? . . .B-N5 4 K-Q5 K-B3 5 K-B6 K-K4
In No. 163 he keeps White from 6 K-B7 K-Q5. In fact. Black has an
playing B-QB6, blocking the diagonal, even more forceful continuation in 3
only by the occupation of QB4. . . .Now if 4 B-N5, then 4
K-Bl. . . .

K-B2 5 K-Q5 B-N7+! 6 K-B5 K-K3!

completely shuts White out of QB7.

164

163: After 1 B-N4 B-R5 2 B-Q7

B-Q8 3 B-B6 B-N5, White’s position
has not improved, for the black bishop
continuously clings to one of the vital
diagonals; hence, a draw.
When the defending king cannot
occupy the square in front of the pawn,
Y. Averbakh 1954
but can prevent the interception of his
bishop’s diagonal, we obtain basic drawn
position Mo. 2. 164: If he wishes, Black can bring
Thus, in No. 161 the black king must about basic drawn position No. 2 by 1

occupy QB4 when the white king stands . . . B-R6 2 K-B6 K-K4! 3 K-B7
on QB7 This information considerably
. K-Q5!, etc.

simplifies the solution.

With 2 K-K5 K-N2 K-Q5 K-B3 4
3
165
K-B6 K-K4 5 K-B7 K-Q5 6 B-K8
K-B4, we secure the second basic
drawn position.
The black king can even take his time
moving QB4. In response to 5 K-B7,
to
Black can give 5 B-B4, and only if 6. . .

B-K8 play 6 K-Q5 7 B-Q,7 B-B7 8

. . .

B-B8 B-R5 9 B-N7 K-B4!

Note that any other move besides 6
. . . K-Q5 misses the point, e.g., 6 . . .

B-R6 7 B-Q7 B-B8 8 B-B8 B-N4 9 Horwitz and Kling 1851

B-N7 K-Q5 10 B-B6, blocking the
diagonal. Were White’s bishop on KR5,
165:
White can try relocating his bishop victory would follow 1 B-N4 and 2
more advantageously, gaining time B-Q7, but instead the bishop stands on
with 3 B-K8, instead of 3 K-Q5, but KN6.
 .

Bishop and Pawn v. Bishop 67

B-K8 B-K7! (The only move if 1

1 these positions when the pawn occupies
, B-Q6 or 7
. . B-B5, then 2 B--R5!, . . a different rank or file?

B-N4 3 B-M, etc.) 2 B-B7 B-N4 3 Let us move No. 163 one file to the
B-R5 K-K4! 4 B-N4 K-Q3, reaching left.

the second basic drawn position.

All these considerations remain valid
with the transferral of No. 161 one file to
the left.

A NP demands a slightly different

modus operandi.

167: The black bishop commands a

shorter diagonal, but still retains access
to two free squares.
Now let us turn to a NP situation.

168: Since the black bishop possesses

166: After 1 B-B5 only a bishop move but one free square along the minor
along the QR1-KR8 diagonal draws. diagonal, any waiting move by the
An interesting variation defeats 1 . . . white bishop along the KR3-QB8
B-R3?, viz., 2 K-B6! B-Bl 3 B-Q3! diagonal (except 1 B-QB8) places
This move, particularly effective Black in zugzwang, e.g., 1 B-N4 K-N4
with the NP, takes away the last square 2 B-K2+
along the QB1-QR3 diagonal from the This type of position, where the
black bishop. After 3 . . .B-N5 4K-N7! defending king supports the bishop, but
and 5 K-R7, White obtains basic the bishop lacks adequate manoeuvring
winning position No. 1. space along the diagonal, allowing
In No. 166 the white king cannot zugzwang, we shall call basic winning

bypass through QR7, as after K-QN5 position No. 2.

Black controls his QR3 with . . .

Now we shall shift No. 168 down one
B-QN2. A more detailed explanation file.

follows. 169: Since two free squares along the

1 B-B5 B-B6 2 B-K6 B-N2! 3 K-B5 crucial diagonal remain open to the

[3B~QP K-Blf) 3 B-B6 (Forced; 3 . . .

black bishop. Black escapes zugzwang.
. K-K2 loses to 4 B-Q^.) 4 B-Q5
. .
We may thus conclude that when the
B-K7 5 B-N7 (White prevents 5 . . .
black bishop has two free squares along
K-Bl.) 5 K-Q2, draw.
. . .
the short diagonal, a drawn position

What happens to the outcome of results; if fewer than two, then White
 s

68 Bishops of the Same Colour

tempo. In that case, Black plays 3 . . .

B-Q3! instead of 3 . B-N6 and after 4

. .

B-N5 K-N4 5 B^Q8 K-B3 6 B-K7

B-R7!, White finds himself stymied
again, as the black king controls his
QB4.
But White has better: 3 B-B5! (The
black bishop no longer has access to
Q3.) 3 B-B5 4 B- K7 K-N4 5 B-Q8
. . .

K-B3 6 B-N51 B-R7 7 B-K3, and the

white bishop penetrates to QR7.

wins. (Centurini uncovered this

relationship in the middle of the 19th

century.)

171: Here the short diagonal consists

of three squares. Therefore, by
controlling two of them. White places
L. Centurini 1847 Black in zugzwang. He proceeds:
B-N7 B-N4 2
1 B-R6 B-B3 3 B-Q3
170: The small diagonal, consisting of B-N2 4 B~N5! B-Bl 5 B-B6!,
only two squares, requires that White zugzwang.
merely get his bishop to QR7 to win, i. e. Notice that not only must White
1 B-N8 B-N8 2 B-N3 R-R2 3 B-B2. deprive the bishop of its free squares,
However, Black does have the but the black king must also have to
possibility of keeping the bishop out of cash its saving moves, which precisely
QR7 by answering B-R4
1 with 1 . . . explains 5 B-B6. Any black king move
K-N4! 2 B-B2 K-R3. The black king allows 6 B-N7, since the pawn no
keeps White from intercepting the longer falls under attack.
diagonal on QB7 and prevents the A convenient rule may be extended
bishop from reaching QR7. that covers similar positions in which
Suppose White waits a move with 3 the defending king prevents the
B-K3, intending to answer 3 B-N6 . . . interception of his bishop’s diagonal,
4 B-N5 K-N4 5 B-Q8 K-B3 with 6 i.e., where the kings stand in vertical
B-R4! B-R7 7 B~B2, gaining a decisive opposition:
 Bishop and Pawn v. Bishop 69

Black draws if the white pawn has not

advanced beyondQR4— QN5-QB6-
Q7-K6-KB5-KN4— KR3 with the
king bishop or QR3-QN4-QB5-Q6-
K7-KB6-KN5-KR4 with the queen
bishop.

Y. Averbakh 1954

B-R3 4 B-Q4. Black succumbs to

zugzwang.
Contradicting the rule, however.
Black draws if the kings stand on K8
and K3, respectively.

Y. Averbakh 1954

White wins if the pawn has exceeded

these limits. Only two exceptions mar
this corollary.

174: In this position Black salvages a

draw, because his bishop cannot be
evicted from the long diagonal.
175: In accordance with the rule,
White wins.
1B-N7 B-N5 2 B~B8 B-Q7 (or 2 . . .

B-B6 3 B-B5 B-N2 4 B-K3) 3 B-B5

70 Bishops of the Same Colour

176: After 1 B-B8 B-K4 2 B-B5 B-N2 introduces us to this type of drawn
3 B-K3, the black bishop has no free position.

squares, but this does not put Black in Both B-K4-QN7-QR6 and
zugzwang. So he continues 3 . . . K-Q3 B-K4— QjB6-QN5 lead to an exchange
4 B-Q4 B-R3, etc. of bishops and . . . K-B2.
Also possible, instead of 3 . . . K-Q3,
is 3 . . . K-B4 4 K-K7 K-N3 (White
refutes 4 .. . with 5 K-B8,
climbing into KN8.) 5 K-K6, draw.

Y. Averbakh 1954

179: After 1 B-Q2, only 1 . . . K-Bl

draws (White was threatening to oust

the black bishop with 2 B-R6 and 3

B-N5 K-Ni! 3 B-B6 B-B7
B~N7.) 2 4
177: If the pawn has not reached the B-K5 B-R5 and if 5 B-B4 B-K2 6
sixth rank, the standard winning plan, B-N5, then 6 . . . BxB! 7 KxB K-B2.
displacing or intercepting the bishop’s Summarizing, three basic kinds of
diagonal, may prove fruitless, leading drawn positions may develop from
only to an exchange of bishops and a ‘bishop and pawn v. bishop’ endgames:
drawn king and pawn endgame. 1) The defending king blockades the
enemy pawn on a square that cannot be
attacked by the enemy bishop;
2) The defending king prevents the
dislodgment of his bishop from or the
intercepting of the controlling
diagonal;
3) The stronger side displaces or
intercepts the defending bishop, but the
resultant exchange of bishops only leads
to a drawn king and pawn endgame.
A
knowledge of these basic positions
makes it easy to understand more
complex endings with various piece and
178: The above arrangement (No. pawn configurations.

171 but with the black king on Q3, not A primary classification may be
QN5), in conjunction with No. 179, based on the pawn’s lateral location.
 •
Sishop and Pawn v. Bishop 71

1 CENTRE PAWN
Nos. 172 and 173 demonstrated that White threatens immediate victory.
centre pawns pose the least danger. All What can Black do?
the same, the defence demands The obvious 1 . . . B-N4 loses to the
precision (No. 180). manoeuvre examined earlier 2 P-Q7
K-B2 3 B-B5 B-Ql 4 B-K7. Only 1 . . .

B-R4! saves the game, e.g., 2 B-BG-f

K-Bl! (Black must not fall for 2 . . .

K-Kl 3 B~K7 and 4 P-Q7 mate.) 3

P-Q7+ K-N2 4 K-K7 K-B3 5 K-K8
K-Q4, and the black king reaches K3.
On the other hand, after 1 K-B6
exactly 1 . . . B-N4 alone produces a
draw.
In No. 182 Centurini displays an
exception to the rule.

Y. Averbakh 1954

Here both 1
180: K-Ql? 2 P-Q7 . . .

K-B2 3 B-B5 B-Ql 4 B-K7, etc. and 1

. B-Ql? 2 B-N7! B-N4 3 P-Q7+
. .

K-Ql 4 B-Q4 K-B2 5 B-B5 B-Ql 6

B-K7 lose for Black.

Only! . . . K-Bl!, stepping out of the

danger zone, clinches the draw, e.g., 2
P-Q7 B-Ql 3 B-B6 B-R4 4 B-R4
B-N3 5 K-Q6 K-B2 6 K-B6 B-R4 7
L. Centurini 1856
K-N7 K-K3 8 K-B8 K-Q4, draw.
181: After 1 K-K6 (or 1 K-B6) Here it seems that 1 P-K7
182:
queens the pawn, were it not for Black’s
1 ... B-Ql! which brings about
stalemate if White promotes to a queen
or rook.
Consequently, White continues 2
P-K8=N (If 2 P~K8=B, then Black
draws with 2 .. B~R4! 3 B~M3 K-QJ .

and 4 .. K-K2.) 2 .B-R5! (Both 2 . . .

. . . B-R4 and 2
B-N4 fail to 3 . , .

d^~Q6-\-, and to 2 B-K2 White . . .

replies 3 B-B7! B-Bl 4 K-B6 and 5

K-Q5.) 3 B-B7 B-K2 4 N-N7 B-Ql 5
Y. Averbakh 1954 B-B4 B-B2!
72 Bishops of the Same Colour

Interestingly, with his bishop on P-K8 = B and after 2 . . . B-R4 mates

KN3, KB4 or K5 White plays 2 in two by 3 B-Q7+.

2 BISHOP PAWN
To win this position White has to
183: position by advancing the pawn to QB7
occupy K7 with his king while denying and his king to QN8.
K4 (B) to the black king. But an '

B. Horwitz 1880

immediate king march fails, e.g.,

K-B4 K-R3 2 K-K5 K-N4

1 3 Sokolsky-Lipnitsky,
K-K6 K-B5 4 K-K7 K-K4, draw. Moscow 1950
Nor does B-K6 help, thanks to
1 1 . . . 1 . . . K-K5 2 K-N2 (The tempting 2
B-Kl! (White threatened 2 B-B5.) 2 K-N4 K-Q6 3 K-B5 B-K6 4 K-K6
K-B5 K-R3 3 B-Q5 B-R4 {3 .. . B-Q7 makes White tardy.) 2 K-Q6 . . .

B-Qf+ 4 K-K5 K-N3 5 P-B7 K-M2 6 3 K-Bl B-B6 4 B-Q8 B-N5 5 B-B6
K~Q6! and 7 K~K7.) 4 K-K6 K-N4 5 K-B7! (Black transfers his king to QN6
K-K7 K-B5 B-B7 B~Q8 7 B-K8
6 and then plays B(QR6)-N7, . . . . . .

B-N6 8 B-Q7 K-K4!, and the black P-B7 and K-N8, while White stirs
. . .

king arrives just in time. helplessly, incapable of stopping the

To win White must gain a tempo, execution of Black’s plan.) 6 K-K2
which he does by: 1 R-N8-|- K-Rl 2 K-N6! 7 B-K5 R-R6 8 B-B6 B-N7 9
B-K6! B-Kl {On 2 . . . K-R2 White B-N5. Now proceeds the immediately
follows 3 B-B5 and if 2 . . . B-Q6, then 3 decisive 9 . . . P-B6! 10B-R6 P-B7 11
K-B4 B-N4 4 K-K5 B-Kl 5 K~Q6 K-R2 K-Q3 B-R6 12 B-N5 K-N7 13 K-B4
6 K-K7 K-JV3 7 B-Q7 B-B2 8 B~B5+.) K-N8 14 K-N3 B-B8. etc.

3 K-B5 K-R2 4 B-Q5 K-R3 (After 4 Positions Nos. 185 and 186 offer two
..
B-Qf-\- 5 K-K5 K-N3y White again
. . further variations on this theme.
has 6 P-B7 K-N2 7 K-Q6 and 8 K-K7.
Also insufficient is ^ B-R4 5 K-K6 . . . 185: Were Black to move, he could
K-N3 6 K-K7 K-B4 7 B-B7 B~Q8 8 entreat 1 . . . K-K6 2 B-B6 B-K7 3
B-K6+ 5 K-K6 K-N4 6 K-K7 B-R4
.)
B-Q5 B-N4 4 B-K6 K-Q5, achieving a
7 B-B7 B-Q8 8 B-K8 B-N6 9 B-Q7 draw. But the move belongs to White,
K-B5 10 B-K6, etc. whose extra tempo wins the game.
184: Black sets up a basic winning 1 B-B6 (White maintains an
 .

Bishop and Pawn v. Bishop 73

reaching QN8.) 2 . . . K-B6 3 K-Q5

K-N5 4 B-N4! K-R4 5 K-B5! B-N4 6
P-B7 B-R3 7 K-B6, and White wins.

1
L. Centurini 1856

B~B4 K-K6 2
alternate possibility in 1
B-Q^ B-K7 3 P-B6 K-Q^4 P-B7 B~R3
5 K-B6 B-Bl 6 B-N2 K-K4 7 B-Bl! J. Crum 1921

Black cannot keep the white king out of

QN8, so White attains the second basic 2 P-B7 B-R3
winning position.) B-Q5
1 . . . B-K7 2 3 K-K3! K-N5
B-N4 3 B-K6 K-K6 4 B-Q.7 B-R3 5 The drawing square, QB5, remains
P-B6 K-Q5 6 P-B7 K-B5 7 B-R3 inaccessible because of 4 B-K2+
K-N5 8 K-B6 K-R4 9 B-N4 K-N5 10 B-K2 4 B-Bl
K-N6, and wins. K-Q4 B-N2 6 B-Bl B-Bl 7 K-Q5
186: Also in this example the result B-N2+ 8 K-Q6 K-R4 9 K-B5! B-Bl
depends on whether or not Black can 10 K-B6 B-N5 11 K-N7 B-B4 12
keep the White king out of QN8. K-N8, etc.

P-B6 K-B6 Having cut off the enemy king from

Unsatisfactory B-R3 2
is 1 ... the pawn with his king and bishop.
K-K4! {2 P-B7? B^N2+ ! 3 K-B4 K-Q6 White succeeds in manoeuvring his
4 K-K5 K-B5 5 B-B3 B-Bl 6 K-Q6 king to the winning square, QN8.
K-M4, draw. In this variation Black can When play revolves around which
move his bishop from QR3 through king moves more quickly toward a
QB5 and QN4 with tempi, prevent- particular goal, cutting off the king

ing the white king from becomes the most potent winning idea.

3 KNIGHT PAWN
187: White reaches a basic winning White confronts a more difficult task
position once his king gets to KB7, a when Black moves first.
simple task when White moves first. 1 K-R3 2 B-B6 B-Bl 3 B-Q4
. . .

1 B-N5 B-Bl (Any bishop move B-K2 {3 .. . B-N2 B^K3^ K-R4 5

4
along the KR1-QR8 diagonal falls B-N5 or 3 .. . B-JV5 4 K-B6 and 5
prey to 2 B-B6.) 2 K-B6 B-K2+ 3 K-B7) 4 P-N7 K.-R2 5 K-K6! and 6
K-B7. K-B7.
74 Bishops of the Same Colour

189: Black’s position appears critical

after 1 B-B4, because White answers
either 1 . . . B-Kl or 1 . . . K-R2 with 2
B-B7. After 1 ... B-N3!!, however,
White’s ‘ambitious’ designs cannot be
realized. Nor does B-N6 B-K7 2 B-B7 1

B-Q6 3 B-K6 B-B7 4 B-B5 work, due

to 4 . . . BxB.

N. Grigoriev 1931

190: This represents a study on the

E. Hallstrbm (?) theme of ‘path interception’.
White wins after 1 P-N6 B-B7 2
188: White cannot effect the winning P-N7 B-R2 B-Nl B-Nl 4 B-B2! 3
plan. B-R7! (If 4 K-N5, then 5 K-m . . .

B-B5 B-Nl 2 P-N6 {2B-M6B-B53

1 K-B4 6 B-N3! B-R2 7 K-B3 K-K3 8
B-B2 B-B2! 4 K-B5 K-N6! 5 K-B6 K-K4 K-Q29 K-Qf K-QJ 10 A'-5^and
with adraw) 2 . . . K-R4 3 K-Q5 the black king cannot penetrate to the
(The unfortunate placement of the white pawn.) 5 B-Kl! B-Nl 6 K-Nl
bishop on QB5 impedes the white king’s K-N5 K-N2 K-B4 8
7 B-N3 R-R2 9
approach to QB6.) 3 . . . K-N4! 4 P-N7 K-B3 K-K3 10 K-K4 K-Q2 1 1 K-Q5
B-B2, and so on. K-Ql 12 K-B6, etc.
191: This position arose in the game
Capablanca-Janowsky, New York,
1916.
Here Janowsky resigned in an
ostensibly hopeless position. However,
had Black been aware of the basic
drawn positions, he could have drawn!
Bypassing to the rear, he can set up
the second main drawn position:
1 . . . K-B5!! 2 B-Q4 {2 B^K5+
K~K6 3 P~N5 K-Q6 4 K-B6 K-B5) 2
 Bishop and Pawn v. Bishop 75

191

Y. Averbakh 1954 Y. Averbakh 1954

. . . P-N5 {3 B~B5 K-K7!! 4

K-B6!! 3 . K-R35B-K4 B-M6P-JV7 B-B5 7
. .

K-B6 K-Q6! 5 K-Q7 B-M 6 P-N5 B~M B-Nl 8 B-K8 K-R2 9 B-B7) 5
K-B5.) 3 K-K7!! 4 K-B6 K-Q6 5
. . .
P^N7 K-R2 6 B-K4+ K-Nl 7 K-N6
B-N6 B-N4 6 K-N7! {6 B-B7 B-K6 7 B-N6 8 K-R6 K-B2 9 K-R7, and so
B-Q6 K-B5) 6 K-B5 7 K-R6 . . .
forth.

K-N6!! 8 B-B2 B-Ql 9 B-Kl K-R5!,

and the black king arrives in time. 193
White to move wins easily with 1

B-K5 K-N5 2 P-N5 K-B6 3 K-B6

K-K5 4 B-B7.
Were the white bishop on Q2 instead
of QB3, even Black to move would lose:

1 . . . K-N5 2 P-N5 K-B6 3 K-B6

K-K5 (Black’s problem is that he
cannot gain a tempo with 3 .. . K-K7,
White refuses 4 B-N4 K-Q6 5
as then
B-Q6 K-B5, drawing, in favour of 4
B-B4 K-Q6 5 B-B7.) 4 K-N7!! (The
only move that leads to victory.) 4 . . .

K-Q6 B-Kl! K-B5 6 K-R6 K-N6 7

5 White reaches a
193: In this situation

B-R5 B-N4 8 P-N6, and White obtains basic winning position by advancing his

basic winning position No. 2. pawn to N6, keeping the black king out
192: Black’s king stands fairly close to of QNl and placing his own king on
thepawn, but White has the move. So, QR7. Through precise play White
Black loses on account of his bishop’s realizes this plan.

hopeless situation. 1 B—Q5

1 B-B3+ K-R3 2 P-N4 K-R2 The active 1 K-Q4 only draws: 1 . . .

(Unfortunately, Black’s bishop cannot K-N4 B-Q5 K-B3 3 B-B4 B-N5! 4

2
occupy the KR2-QN8 diagonal, as K-B5 K-K2 5 B-R6 {5 P~N5 K-QJ 6
White answers 2 .. . B-R2 with 3 P-N5 K~MB-Q^sind7. .BxP)5. .B-B6 . .

mate.) 3 P-N5 B-B5 4 P-N6-t- K-N 1 {4 6 K-N6 K-Ql 7 K-R7 B-B3.

76 Bishops of the Same Colour
• V

8
1 . . . K-N4 B-N5-f!
7

2 B-B4 B-N5! White would err with 7 B-Bl B-N2!

Black simplifies White’s task with 2 8 B-R3+ K-K2, draw.
. . .B-B6 3 P-N5 K-B3 4 K-N4! K-K2 1 ... K-Q,l
5 K-R5, and the king penetrates to K-B6!
QR7. The continuation 8 K-Q6 B-N2! 9
3 P-N5 K-B3 B-Q7 B-N7! 10 B-K6 B-N2! only
4 P-N6 B-Bl draws.
8 . . . B— Q2-j-
On 4 . B-B6 5
. . K-Q4 K-K2 White 9K-Q6!B-Bl 10B-B4! (Hachaturov
follows 6 B-Q5!
lighted upon this move) 10 B-N2 11 . . .

5 K-Q4 K-K2 B-K6! Here White’s win pursues the

6 K-B5 K-Q2 aforementioned plan. The author’s
If 6 . . . B-N2, then 7 B-Q5 B^Bl 8 continuation, 10 B-B6, only draws after
K-B6 wins 10 . . . B-B4 11 P-N7 B-Bl!!

4 ROOK PAWN
Earlier studies (Nos. 171, 174, 178)
sufficiently covered the basic RP
positions. Here we examine one of
Grigoriev’s studies treating the already
familiar ‘path interception’ theme
against the enemy king.
194: White screens off theenemy
king’s path with 1 P-R6 B-Nl 2 B-B8
B-R2 (After 2 .. . K-Nl, White has 3
B^KG! B-R2 4 K-N6.) 3 B-R6! B-N3 4
B-N5 K-N2 5 K-N4! K-N3 6 B-R4!
Now White responds to 6 ... B-R2
with 7 K-B4, marching his king to
KN7. Black to move draws after 1 . . .

N. Grigoriev 1931 K-N2.

 1

10 BISHOP AND TWO PAWNS V. BISHOP

As a rule, the bishop and two pawns win A typical position appears in
with little difficulty, diagram No. 195.

1 CONNECTED PAWNS
195: A simple solution answers this avoid blockade. Black’s drawing
problem; chances centre exclusively around this

blockading possibility.

For example, no victory befalls

White in No. 196.

Y. Averbakh 1954

1 K-K2 K-N5 2 B-Kl B-Q3 3

P-B3+ K-B5 4 P-N3+ K-B4 5
R. Fine 1941
p_N4+ K-K3 (Or 5 ... K-B5 6
B-Q^+ K-N6 7 P-N5 B-K4 8 P-M 196: 1 K-Ql K-Q6
P-N5 B-Ql 2
B-M2 9 K-K3 K-R5 10 K-K4 K-R4 11 with the continuation 3 K-B5 or . . . 1

K-B5, etc.) 6 K-Q3 K-Q4 7 B^Q.2 K-N2 R-B5 2 K-R3 B-N4 3 K-R4
B-B2 8 P-B4 B-N3 (Otherwise White B-Ql (The king must be locked out of
!

plays 9 K-K3, 10 K-B3, 11 P-N5 and 12 QR5.) 4 P-N5 B-N3. A classical

K-N4.) 9 B-B3 B-B4 10 P-N5 B-N3 1 example of blockade!
P-N6 K-K3 2 K-K4 B-Ql 3 P-B5+
1 1 Let us now move this position up one
K-K2 14 K-Q5 K-Bl 15 K-K6 B-N4 rank.
16 P-B6, winning. 197: White wins with 1 K-N3 B-B4 2
Other variations also win; White K-R4 B-Q2 3 K-R5
B-Bl 4 P-N6
need only take care that the pawns B-N2 5 B-Bl B-Bl 6 B-R3! B-N2 7
78 Bishops of the Same Colour

B-K6, zugzwang, forcing Black to lift

the blockade.

On 1 . . . B-B5 follows 2 B-Q3!, and 1

. . . B-Q8 2 B-B2! ends in perpetual

R. Fine 1941
pursuit.

Another possible winning idea

involves a pawn sacrifice: 4 B-B3 KxP
5 K—N6 K—N5 6 B— B6, etc.
Against connected wing pawns
additional drawing opportunities
emerge for the defender. Two
demonstrations follow.
198: White draws with 1 B-R6!
More complications arise in No. 199.

199: Black’s material advantage

means little after the problem-like move,
1 K-Rl! For example, after 1 B-R7 . . .

White continues 2 B-B2! P-N6 3 BxP. J. Moravec 1927

2 DOUBLED PAWNS

Y. Averbakh 1954
 Bishop and Two Pawns v. Bishop 79

When the defending king can blockade White to move wins with 1 B-R5
the enemy pawns and not be attacked B-R6 (If Black plays 1
B-N4, then . . .

by the enemy bishop, the game is a White continues 2 K-K6 B-Kl 3 P-QJ.)
draw. Otherwise, the doubled pawns 2 B-B7 B-Q2 (White threatened 3
win. B^K6.) 3 B-N6! B-N4 (After 3 ...
No. 200 shows a clear example of B-N5 White has 4 B-B5, etc.) 4 K-K6
this. B-Kl 5 P-Q7.
200: Black to move draws with 1 . . . 201: Even if White moves first. Black
K-Kl and 2 . . .K-Ql. draws.

3 ISOLATED PAWNS
Disconnected pawns also herald a
comparatively easy win.

Sokolsky-Lipnitsky, Moscow 1950

203: Grossly inaccurate would be 1

R. Fine 1941
. P-B4, because of 2 BxP, draw. The
. .

202: The following continuation wins winning idea involves sacrificing the
for White: RP and achieving a won king, bishop
P-B4+ K-Q3 2 P-B5 K-K4 3
1 and pawn endgame.
P-Q4+ K-B3 4 K-B4 B-N6 5 B-B6 The simplest line proceeds 1 . . ,

B-B7 6 B-Q7 B-N6 7 K-K4 B-B5 (If 7 B-K4 B-N6 B-Q5 3 B-R5 P-B4 4
2
. . , White plays 8 K-Q5!)
B~B7-\-, then K-R2 P-B5 5 KxP, obtaining position
8 P-Q5 B-N6 9 B-K6 B-B5 10 K-Q4 No. 184, which wins for Black.
B-K7 (With 10 ... B-R7 Black But no rule exists that does not have
succumbs K-B5 B~N6 12 P-Q6.)
to 11 an exception!
11 P-Q6 B-N4 12 P-Q.7 K-K2 13 204: Despite White’s large material
P-B6+ K-Ql 14 P-B7 K-K2 15 advantage, he cannot win,
P-Q8 = Qh- and 16 P-B8 = Q-t-. 1 B-K8 (If 1 P-K6, then Black
When more than one file separates continues 1 BxKP.)
. . . B-N5^.nd 2 . . .

the pawns, the stronger side has an even 1 .B-N5 2K-Q8(Or2A'-Q6^A'-R?J

. .

easier win. Difficulties arise only with a B^QJ BxP 4 P-K6 K-N2 5 P-K7
RP, when the enemy bishop controls K-B3.) 2 K-R3 (Also possible is 2
. . .

the promotion square. . . .B-K33B-Q7B-B24B-N4B-N65

80 Bishops of the Same Colour

205

Goglidze-Kasparian, Benediktsson-Olafsson,
Tbilisi 1929 Reykjavik 1956
(Averbakh 1972)

K-K7 B-B5 6 K-Q6 B^M 7 B-B3 How'ever, the text does not lose, as

B-B2 8 B-Qf BxP 9 P-K6 K-B3 10 White can answer 3 .. P-K4 with
. 4
P-K7 B-Kl, drawing.) 3 B-Q7 BxP 4 B-B6.) 3 . . . B-K4 4 B-N4 B-B2 5
P-K6 K-N2 5 P-K7 K-B3! (The B-K7? (This allows Black to reach a
quieter 5 .. B-N3 loses to 6 B-K8
. winning position. White could have
B-K5 7 B-R5 B-B3 8 R-M.) 6 B-K8 draw by 5 B-B3.) 5
held the K-B4 6 . . .

B-K7 7 B-N6 B—N4 Draw. (See No. B-R4 B-B5! 7 B-Kl P-K4 8 B-B3
165.) P-K5 9 B-Q4 K-N5 10 B-B2 K-B6 1

If White initiates the manoeuvre B-R4 (White is lost. 11 B-Q4 B~N6 12

K-K7-Q6-Q5-K4-KB5-KN5, then B^B5 B-B7 13 B-N4 P-K6 14 K-R2
Black must answer K-K4 with . . . K-N5 15 B-B5 B^NRr 16 K-Nl P-K7
K-KN4! 17 B-M4 leads to the same result.) 11...
Finally, K-B6
on 1 P-R6+ KxP 2 P-K6 12 B-B2 P-K7 13 B-Kl B-N6 14
follows 2 B-N5 3 B-N6 B-K7 4
. . . B-N4 K-B7 15 B-B5-f K-B8 16 B-N4
P-K6 B-B5 5 P-K7 B-N4 6 K-B7 B-K8 7 B-K7 B-Q7 18 B-R4 B-K6 19
1

K-N4!, and Black reaches a basic Resigns.

drawn position.
Were the RP on KR4, an effortless
win would succeed 1 B-K8 B-N5 2
K-Q6 K-R3 3 B-Q7 B-R4 4 P-K6
K-N2 5 P-K7 K-B3 6 B-N5 B-N3 7
K-Q7 K-K4 8 K-Q8 K-Q3 9 B-K8
B-Q6 10 B-B7 B-N4 11 P-R5.
205: The peculiarity of this position is
that, if White defends correctly. Black is

unable to advance his KP.

1 . . . B-B6 2 B-Q6 K-K5 3 B-K7 (It

was simpler to manoeuvre the bishop

without losing control of his K5 square. A. Yaroslavtsev 1947
 Bishop and Two Pawns v. Bishop 81

206: It would seem that after 1 and P-K7.

. . .

B-B7+ K-Q5 2 BxP Black has an However, White can equalize with 3
elementary win with 2 . . . K-B6, as B-B2!! P-KG 4 K-Bl P-K7 5 B-Ql!, as
White lacks a defence to . . .P-KG-f in Centurini’s study, No. 182.
11 BISHOP AND PAWN V. BISHOP AND
PAWN
‘Bishop and pawn v, bishop and pawn’ file to the right, the outcome hinges on
endings characteristically end in a who moves first.

draw. The following exceptions lead to

a win:
1 ) One side captures the enemy pawn,
reducing to a won endgame a pawn
ahead;
2) Both sides possess passed pawns and
a) one queens first, or
b) both queen simultaneously, but one
Y. Averbakh 1954
wins the resultant queen endgame.

Moving first. Black holds on

208:
with K-Kl! 2 B-K7 B-B6 3 BxP
1 .

B-Q7 4 B-R4 B-B6 (Also playable is 4

. K~B1 5 P-B6 B-R3! 6 B^B2 K~Nl!
. .

7 B-B5 K-R2.), draw.

White to move wins: K-B7! K-Q2 1

2 B-K7 B-B6 3. BxP B-K8 4 B-N5

B-B6 5 K-N6!, and Black has no
Y. Averbakh 1954
defence against B-KR6-KN7 and
P-B6, reaching basic winning position
207: 1 K-K7 (Most promising, for 1 No. 2.
B-Q7+ allows 7 . . K-QJ 2 BxP B-K7
. Curiously, this position moved one
3 B-B5 B-B5 4 B-K4 B-N6 and to 5 file to the right draws, regardless of
B-Q5 comes 5 . . . BxB 6 KxB K-Q^, whose turn to move.
draw.) K-B2 2 B-Q7 B-N6 3 BxP
1 . . . 209: After K-N7 K-K2 2 B-B7
1

B-Q8 4 B-B5 B-N6 5 K-B6 B-B5 6 B-Q6 3 BxP B-N4 4 K-R6 K-Bl 5
B-N6 B-N6 7 B-B7 B-R5 8 P-K6 B-R5 B-Q6, all of White’s attempts
K-Q3 9 P-K7 B-N4 10 B-R5 B-R5 1 must fail, as his bishop cannot reach
K-B7 K-K4 12 K-B8 K-B3, draw. KR7 without permitting the enemy
Black has obtained the basic drawn bishop onto the K1-KR4 diagonal. In
position. No. 208, with a BP, White could play
When we shift position No. 207 one B-KN5-KR6-KN7, but here, with a
 ,

Bishop and Pawn v. Bishop and Pawn 83

. . . P-R6. . . P-7?7and . . . B-R6-JV7.)

209
2 . . . B-K3 B-B6+ K-B7 (If 5
3 . . .

K-R7, then 4 B-JV7 P-R6 5 B-K4 K-M

6 K-JV3 P—R7 yields No. 174 with
colours reversed.) 4 B-Q5! B-Q2 (Or 4
. . . BxB 5 K-M) 5 B-B6! B-R6 6
B— Q5 B-N7 7 B-K6 Draw.

211

+
Y. Averbakh 1954

NP, no corresponding square to KR6

exists on the board.

A. Troitsky 1913

211: White’s clear positional

advantage makes his passed pawn
much more dangerous than Black’s.
P-R5 B-R5 (If 7
1 K-M, then 2 . . .

K-B5! B-B5 3 B-R2d- !, and on 7 . . .

B-QJ comes 2 B-M. Finally, White

answers 7 ... K-M with 2 P-R6
T eichmann-Marshall,
San Sebastian 1911 B^B5+ 3 K-Q5! B-M 4 K-B6 K-M 5
K-N7 K-N7 6 KxB KxB 7 P-R7.) 2
210:White resumed 1 K-K4? and P-R6 B-N6+ 3 K-K4 B-Nl 4 K-B3!
resigned after 1 ... B-Bl 2 K-K3 K-R5 (The compelling 4 .. P-R5 .

B-Q2!, because 3 K-K4 exposes 3 . . . forfeits the pawn to 5 B-B2.) 5 B-K3!

B-B3+ 4 K-K3 BxP, and 3 K-Q2 (Suddenly, Black faces zugzwang.) 5

expires under 3 . . . K-B7! 4 B-B4 KxP . K-R6 6 B-B2 K-R7
. . {Or 6 .. .

5 K-Kl K-N8! (5. P-R66B-B1+) 6 . . P-R5 7 B-M) 7 B-N3+.

B-Bl B-K3 7 B-N5 P-R6 8 B-B6 P-R7 In this study the strength of the
9 B— K4 B-R6 and 10 B-N7. . , . centralized king, covering both sides of
White can draw, however: 1 B-N5! the board, creates a powerful
KxP (Or 7. B-K3, Sind 2 B-B6B-B5
. . impression.
3 B-K4 B-B8 4 B-Q5 BxP 5 B-K6, 212: Here, too. White’s pawn looms
which reveals No. 178 with colours much more menacingly than Black’s,
reversed.) 2 K-B4! (But not 2 B-N7-\- but Black draws easily if he can slip in

because Black has 2 . . . K-N6 trailed by . . . P-K5.

84 Bishops of the Same Colour

P. Heuacker 1930 H. Cohn (?) 1929

So, utilizing problem-like moves, 214: The same position minus the
White goes about thwarting this black pawn on KR4 wins for White, as
advance. we pointed out earlier. And it turns out
1 B-R7! B-R8 2 K-Nl B-B6 3 K- B2 that Black’s pawn cannot save the
B-R8 4 B-Q4!!! Such a move deserves game.
three exclamation marks. White’s 1 B-K3 B-K4 (Black must lose time
pawn neither can be stopped after 4 . . . with his bishop, as after P-R5 1 . . .

PxB 5 K-Q3, nor after 4 . . . BxB 5 White triumphs with 2 B-B2! B-R7 3
K-Q3 and 6 K-K4. BxP, etc.) 2 B-R7 P-R5 3 B-N8 BxB 4
(The following study introduced this KxB P-R6 5 K-B8 P~R7 6 P-N8=Q,
theme.) P-R8=Q7 Q.-QR8+.
Liburkin’s problem. No. 215, ends in
the same manner.

A. Mouterde 1914
M. Liburkin 1940

213: 1 P-R6 B-Q5 2 B-B5 B-R8 3

K-Nl, etc. 215 : P-R6 B-B6 (The forceful 1
1 . . .

Although the pawns queen simul- B-Q7 loses immediately to 2 P-R7 B-B6
taneously in No. 214, one queen dies 3 B-N4. If his king were on K7, Black
immediately thereafter. could draw with / . . . B-Q7, e.g., 2
 Bishop and Pawn v. Bishop and Pawn 85

P-R7 B-B63K-N2 K-Q64 K-B6 K-B5

5 B-Q6 P-N5 6 K-B4 P-N6 7 B^K5
BxB 8 KxB P-N7.) 2 B-B8 P-N5 3
B-N7 (A tense position. White intends
to march his king to KN6 and then

advance the pawn. Black strives to

thwart this plan,) 3 , , , K-B7 4 K-R2
K-B6 5 K-R3 K-B5,
It would seem that Black has
succeeded. However, White discovers 6
BxB! PxB 7 P-R7 P-B7 8 P-R8=Q
P-B8 = Q9 and wins,
Q;-R6-f-, A, Troitsky 1925

216: Here more complex play brings

about a similar conclusion, P-B8=Q 7 QrR2+ K-N6! 8
1 F -R6 P-B5 P-R7 P-B6 3 B-Rl!
2 Q-KN2+ K-B5 (If Black tries 8 .. .

B-R5+ (If 5, .B-N3+ 4 K-K7P-B7,

, Q^KB2+ K-N5 - 9
K-R5, then 9 , , ,

then White finishes with 5 P-R8=Q^ K-N4 10 Q-N3+ or 9 K-R4 10 , , ,

P~B8— Q6 Q^W2mate,) 4 K-B7! (Only R-B3+ and 11 QrN3+ - 10 B-Q7+

this retreat wins,) 4 , , , B-B3! (Black K-R4 11 Q^B3-\- mates quickly,) 9
sacrifices a piece, thinking that the Q-B3+ K-N4 (Or P K-K4, , , 10
queen v. queen and bishop ending gives Q^KB6 mate,) 10 QrKN3+ K-B4 11

him a draw,) 5 BxB P-B7 6 P-R8 = Q Q_N6+ K-B5 12 QrR6+.

12 BISHOP AND TWO PAWNS V. BISHOP
AND PAWN

The side holding the pawn advantage Of course, only the main instances
usually wins if he: will be treated here.
1 ) Queens a pawn or, at least, exchanges The pawn configuration, being a
one pawn for enemy bishop,
the characteristic positional trait, will serve
obtaining a winning endgame a piece as the basis for our analysis. The
ahead; chapter shall incorporate the following
2) Captures the enemy pawn, situations:

maintaining a winning two pawn

advantage; 1) Connected passed pawns;
3) Exchanges a pair of pawns, leading 2) Connected pawns, one passed;
to a won bishop and pawn v. bishop 3) Connected pawns, none passed;
ending 4) Isolated passed pawns;
4) Exchanges bishops, reducing to a 5) Isolated pawns, one passed;
won pawn endgame. 6) Isolated pawns, none passed.

1 CONNECTED PASSED PAWNS

Two connected passed pawns versus can even sacrifice the bishop for the
one generally win without much lone enemy pawn.
difficulty. If necessary, the stronger side No. 217 represents a typical
situation.
P-N4 P-R5 2 P-N5 B-N6
217: 1 3
B-Nl P-R6 4 P-R5 K-B4 (If 4 . . .

P-R7, then White plays 5 BxP BxB 6

P-R6B-JV17P-M, etc.) 5 P-N6 K-K5
6 P-R6 K-B6 7 P-R7 K-N7 8 B-B5
(Simplest.) 8 P-R7 9 P-R8=Q. . .

P-R8=Q 10 K-Q7+ K-R7 11

QxQH- KxQ 12 B-Q6. Black resigns.

Difficulties arise only when the
enemy possesses a far advanced passed
pawn.
218: Thus, here White can neutralize
Santasiere-Fine, New York 1938 Black’s threat to advance the pawn.
 : ,

Bishop and Two Pawns v. Bishop and Pawn 87

queens and P-N7; as a result, Black

gave up after 2 P-R6.
Yet every rule has an exception.
219: A stalemate possibility rescues
White:
1 B-Q3 P-N5 2 P-Q5! BxP 3
B-B2-|-!! (An unexpected blow.) 3 . . .

K-R6 {3 .. . K-B6 4 BxP B-K5 5

B-N3/') 4 B-K4! B-Nl 5 B-R7! B-R7
6 B-B2! B-N6 7 B-K4 B-Q8 8 B-B2!,
and Black draws as in No. 199.

Bronstein-Ragozin, Stockholm 1948

An unstoppable far advanced passed
pawn usually surpasses two passed
winning the white bishop. pawns in strength.

1 P-N5 P-B6 2 P-R6! (Incorrect

would be 2 P-N6-\- due to 2 . . . K-Nl,
immobilizing the pawns.) 2 . . . P-B7 3
p_N6+ K-Ql 4 P-R7 P-B8=Q 5
P-R8=Q.+ K-K2 6 Q-K8+ K-B3 7

Q-KB8-t- ,
followed by exchanging

O. Duras 1906
(end of a study)

220: After 1 B-R4! K-N4 B-Kl!

2
P-N6 3 BxP BxB 4 P-R7 P-B7 5
P-R8=QP-B8=Q6 QrR6+, Black
M. Mikhailov 1951
queen.
loses his

2 CONNECTED PAWNS, ONE PASSED

Against only one passed pawn drawing forces the black bishop onto the small

chances improve, the outcome diagonal:

depending upon whether the stronger 1 B-B5 B-B8 K-Q4 B-K7 3 B-Q3!
2
side can capture the lone enemy pawn. B-N5 4 K-B5 B-Q2. Now the bishop
Examine No. 221. has only two squares - Kl and Q2.
221 T o carry out the chore of putting Depriving it of one of these points plants
Black in zugzwang, White must narrow Black in zugzwang. 5 B-Bl B-Kl 6
down his opponent’s options. First, he B-R3!! Black has no useful move, e.g., 6
88 Bishops of the Same Colour

Y. Averbakh 1954 Y. Averbakh 1954

. . . K-R2 7 B-N2 K-R3 8 B-B6 or 6 223: However, here Black can draw,
. . . B-B2 7 B-B8-I-, losing the pawn. because enough squares remain open to
White also wins in this position his bishop along the QB5-QR7
moved one file to the right (No. 222). diagonal, e.g., 1 K-B4
B-R5 B-K5 2
B-Q6 3 B-B3 B-B5 4 K-K5 B-N6 5
B-R5 B-B5 6 B-B7 B-N6 7 B-K8+
K-B2 8 B-N5 B-R7, and White has
achieved nothing.
Transferring No. 223 one file to the
right reveals a new line of attack which
wins for White.

Y. Averbakh 1954

222: Granted, after B-N5 Black can

1

play 1 . . . B-Q5 2 K-K4 B-B6 3 B-K3

B-N5 4 K-Q5 B-R6, but here the
bishop lacks range. White continues 5
B-N5 B-N5 (Or 5 . . . K-N2 6 B-K7
K-N37B-Q8+ K-N28 B-R5)
B-R6 7 B-Q8+ K-N2 8 B-R5!, and Y. Averbakh 1954
once again Black finds himself in
zugzwang.
Then hopeless are 8 K-R2 9 . . . 224: White wins easily with 1 B-B8+
K-B6 and 8 . . . B-N5 9 BxB PxB 10 K-Q2 2 B-B5 B-N6 3 B-R7, since he
K-Q4 K-N3 11 K-Q3 K-B4 12 K-B2 B-N8 and can answer
threatens 4 3 . . .

K-N3 13 K-N2. K-B2 with 4 K-K6.

 Bishop and Two Pawns v. Bishop and Pawn 89

3 CONNECTED PAWNS, NONE PASSED

Should the stronger side have no passed Black must defend precisely. On 1

pawns, all other things being equal, his P-N6, he perishes after 1 . . . PxP 2
game holds but slight winning chances. PxP K-Nl P-N7 B-N6 4
3 K-N6
See No. 225 for an example. B-B2+ 5 K-R6, etc. But he survives
with 1 . . . K-Nl!, draw succeeds 2
as a
B-B6 B-N6 3 B-Q8 B-B5 4 B-B7+
BxB 5 PxB+ K-Bl 6 K-Q6 P-R3.
Even more hazardous for Black is No.
226 moved one file to the right (No.
227).

225: Black can effortlessly repulse any

enemy aggression.
After 1 B-Q3 B-Q8 2 P-R5 K-N2, a
clear draw develops, or 1P-N5 PxP 2
PxP K-N2 3 P-N6 K-Nl, etc.
When we move No. 225 up one rank Y. Averbakh 1954
(No. 226), winning chances dawn for

White. 227: Thus, after 1 P-B6 K-Bl! (Not 1

. . . PxP? 2 PxP, which gives Black a

lost endgame.) 2 B-N6.
Black draws with the more active 2
. K-Nl. (The more passive 2 ..
. . .

B-R6 3 B-K8 B-N5 fails to 4 B-Q7+

BxB PxB+ K-QJ 6 K-K6 P-N3 7
5
K-K5! KxP 8 K-Q5!, etc.) 3 B-K8
PxPl 4 PxP K-R2, since the white king
cannot reach QN8.
Also possible is 1 B-B4, instead of 1

P-B6. Black then loses with 1 . . . B-B4?

(Or / . . . B-R6.) 2 P-N6! B-N5 {2...
Y. Averbakh 1954 K-Bl 3 B-K6T or 2. . .B-K5 3 B-Q5 or
2 ... B^B7 3 P-B6! PxP 4 P-N7) 3
226: The black king stays trapped B-Q5 (The obvious 3 P-B6 K-Bl
along the rook making the white
file, draws.) 3 K-Bl 4B-K6-f leaving a . . .
,

pawns considerably more dangerous. won king and pawn endgame.

90 Bishops of the Same Colour
"

Besides 2 P-N6, White also wins with 1 . . B-K2!

2 B-K6 B-Q6 (2 . . . B-K5 3 P-N6) 3 The strongest move, which best
P-B6 PxP 4 PxP. arrests the realization of White’s
Note that in this last variation 3 advantage.
B-Q7 (Not 5 P-JV6, which allows 3 .. . 2 P-B6! B-R6
B-N4! draw.) also works: 3 . . . B-K5 4 3 B-B6I
P-N6 B-N7 5 B-K6! (A draw follows 4 The black king must not reach
P-B6??BxP5BxBK-Bl!!) 5 .B-B6 . . QBl.
6 B-Q5, etc. 3 . . . B-N5
However, after 1 B-B4 the forceful 1 4 K-B5 K-B2
. B-Q2! 2 P-N6 B-R5 3 B-K6 B-N4
. . If 4 . . . B-Q3, then White plays 5
equalizes for Black, as White cannot B-K5.
strengthen his position any further. 5 B-N5! B-B4
After 5 . . . B-Q3, White’s set-up
allows for the exchange of bishops with
6B-KB4. Now the white king heads for
QB8, after which the black pawn will
be lost. Black, therefore, cannot afford
to defend passively. He rushes his king
to Q4 attempting to compose a drawn
bishop and pawn v. bishop ending.
6 K-K4 K-N3
7 B-B4 B-N3
8 K-Q3 K-B4
Y. Averbakh 1954 9 B-N3 B-R4
10 K-B4 K-K5
228: This situation proves even more White seems to win with 11 P-Q6
unfavourable for Black, yet the PxP 12K-N5 B-Ql 13B-B2 B-B2 14 !

straightforward 1 P-Q6 only draws B-N6 B-Nl 15 B-R7! B-B2 16 K-R6

after 1 . . . PxP! Unlike the preceding P-Q4 K-N7, but Black unveils 17
17
studies. Black loses with any other . . . B-R7!! 18 B-Nl P-Q5 19 BxB
move, K-Ql 2 P-Q7 B-K2 {2
e.g. 1 . . . P~Q6, and the pawns queen
. . .P-B33K-Q6B-K2+ 4KxPBxP5 simultaneously.
B-N5^) 3 P-B6 B-B3 4 B-B4 B-R5 5 Victory follows:
B-K5 B-N4 6 B-N3 B-B3 7 Bx P+ etc. ,
11 B-R2
B-N3
Furthermore, the natural 2 PxP+ 12 B-Nl! B-R4
transposes into No, 180, where Black If 12. .BxB,thenl3P-Q6B-R7
. 14
draws with 2 K-Bl! . . . P-Q7, and black’s bishop cannot hold
However, White does win and in a the QP.
superbly interesting and instructive 13 K-B5!
manner. The simplest win, first pointed out by
1 B-Q4! Dzhenandyanom (Yerevan).
An important move, keeping the 14 . . . B-N3+
black king out of QBl. If 14 . . . B-B6, then 15 P-Q6 PxP+
 Bishop and Two Pawns v. Bishop and Pawn 91

16 K-N5, and 14 K-K4 succumbs

. . . 15 K-N5 BxB
to 15 B-R2H- K-moves 16 BxP BxB 17 16 P-Q6, and White wins.
P-Q(5, etc.

4 ISOLATED PASSED PAWNS

With isolated pawns, that of the weaker
side also passed, victory goes to the
stronger side, if he can blockade the
enemy pawn either with his king or
bishop and simultaneously advance his
own passed pawns.
Red’s study (No. 229) provides a
magnificent illustration.
229: Black threatens 1 . . . K-N5 2
P-R5 K-N4, tying down the bishop to
the defence of the RP, thus
immobilizing the white pawns. R. Red 1925
Consequently, White counters 1 B-R5!
K-N6 {1 K-Q4 2 K-K2 K-B3 3
...
K-Q^ K-JV2 4 B-B3 B-R3 5 K-K4! the bishop>cannot handle the pawns.) 3
K-N3 6 K-Q5 B^Bl 7 B-Q2 B-N2 8 P-R5 K-N7 4 P-R6 P-B5 5 P-R7
B-K3 K-R49BxPKxPlO B~Q^ B-R3 P-B6 6 P-R8=Q P-B7 7QrN7+
11 K-K6 K-N5 12 K-B7 K-B5 13B-K3) K-R7 8 QrB7+ K-R6 9 Q.-B7 K-N6
2B-B3!!KxB(After2. .BxB3P-R5, . 10 K-K2 B-R3 11 K-Q3, and wins.

5 ISOLATED PAWNS, ONE PASSED

Now let us examine separated pawn once the enemy pawn has been
situations containing only one passed eliminated. No. 230 presents a typical
pawn. example.
The stronger side usually wins easily. 2^: White’s simplest winning line
proceeds 1 B-Q3 B-Q2 2 K-K4 B-B3-4-
3 K-B4 B-B6 4 B-B5, etc.

Black also overcomes the enemy

pawn in the next example.
231: B-K4 2 B-B8 K-K5 3
1 . . .

B-K7 K-Q5 4 B-R4 B-Q3! 5 B-Kl

K-B5 6 B-Q2 BxP 7 B-B4 K-Q4! 8
B-K3 B-Q3. Position No. 203 surfaces.
Black cannot play 8 P-B4 because . . .

of 9 BxP, but he can sacrifice the RP,

winning as before.
Of course, in certain situations
92 Bishops of the Same Colour

231 233

1+ + or

Sokolsky-Lipnitsky, Santasiere-Kashdan, Boston 1938

Moscow 1950
233: Were his bishop on K4, White
a bishop and two pawns do not could play P-B5 and K-K6,
1 2
overwhelm a lone bishop. We present winning the black pawn.
one of these exceptional cases below.
Here, however. White must renounce
this idea, for 1 B-K4 allows 1 . . . P-B4,
defending the pawn with the bishop.
Still White does win, but only by a
single tempo.
1 K-K7 P-B4
2 K-B6 B-R6
3 K-K5
If 3 K-N5, then 3 . . . K-Bl 4
B-K6+ K-N2 5 BxP B-N7 6 B-Q3
B-R6 7 B-K2 KxP 8 B-N4 B-B8 9
P-B5 K-B4 10 P-B6 B-B5 11 K-N6
Goglidze-Kasparian, Tbilisi 1929
K-Q3 2 K-N7 K-K4 3 B-R5 K-B5!,
1 1

and Black draws.

232: White captures a second pawn 3 . . . K-Bl
with 1 K-Q6 B-N5
K-Q7 K-N2 3 2 K-Bl, the move 3
Instead of 3 . , .

K-K7 B-Q8! 4 KxP B-N5+ {4 .. . . .B-N5! puts up more resistance,

.

B-N&^5K-K7BxB?6P-R6+ K-N37 since 4 B— K6? K-N2 5 BxP B-K7 6

P-R7) 5 K-K7 B-K7, but Black B-K6 KxP 7 P-B5 K-B4 8 P-B6 B-R4
reaches thedrawn position No. 204. only draws.
An enemy pawn cannot always be Nonetheless, White also wins this
captured without relinquishing a pawn continuation and very elegantly
Sometimes the struggle for a
in return. indeed: 4 B-N2! K-Bl 5 K-B6! K-Nl 6
win merely produces an exchange of K-N5 K-Bl 7 B-K4!! K-Nl (7 . . .

pawns, cumbering the resultant bishop PxB 8 KxB K-N29 P-B5, tic.)
and pawn v. bishop ending with the B-B6 9 B-R7 K-N2 10 P-B5 KxP 11
position’s true outcome. P-B6 B-Q4 12 K-N6 K-B4 13 K~N7
Examine No, 233. K-Q3 14 B-N8, etc.
 Bishop and Two Pawns v. Bishop and Pawn 93

4 B-K6+ K-N2 problem-like win. 4 B-B4! K-N2 5

8
5 BxP B-B8 B-Q3 B-R7 6 K-B5 B-K3 7 B-B2!
6 B-K6 KxP B-Bl (7. ..K-m8K-Q6B~Bl9K-K5
game Black played 6
In the . . . B^R3 10 BxP K-N2 11 B-K6 KxP 12
B-Q6? and resigned after 7 K-Q4. P-B5 K-B2 13 P-B6 K-QJ 14 B-B7
7 P-B5 K-B2 K-Q2 15 K-B5 K-Q^ 16 K-N6 B^K7+
P-B6 K-Ql 9 B-B7! K-Q,2 10 K-B5 17 K-N7 K-K4 18 B-N8, winning.) 8
K-Q3 1 1 K-N6 B-N4 12 K-N7 K-K4 B-N3 B-Q2 9 B-Q5+ K-Nl 10 B-B4!
13 B-N8. Black lacks one tempo. K-N2 {10 .. K-Bl 11 K-Q6 B-R5 12 .

The location of the bishop on KN5 B-K6+ K-M2 13 BxP KxP 14 B-K4
or, on KR6, causes Black’s
as well, B-Kl 15 P-B5 K-JV4 16 P-B6 K-B5 17
downfall. By taking advantage of this K-K7 B-R4 18 B-B6 and 19 B-K8, or 10
feature in the position. White always . .B-R5 1 1 B-Q^ B-Q^ 12 K-Q6 B-Bl
.

succeeds in gaining a decisive tempo for 13 K-K5, etc.) 11 B-N3! K-Nl

the subsequent bishop and pawn B-Bl 12B-Q5+ K-Nl 13 K-Q4!! B-R3
endgame. 14 B-B4! B-Bl 15 K-K5 B-Q^ 16 B-Q5
But White cannot win if the black B-Bl 17 B-B6') 12 K-Q6! B-Kl {12
bishop stands on Q6, so long as Black . .B-N4 13 B-B2 K-N2 14 BxP KxP
.

defends accurately, e.g., 15 B-K4 B-Kl 16 P-B5 K-N4 17 P-B6,

etc.) 13 B-K6 K-N2 14 BxP KxP 15

B-Q,3! K-N2 16 P-B5 K-Bl 17 K-K7

B-R4 18 P-B6, and so forth.
However, if Black plays the correct 3
, . B-Q8!, then White’s idea cannot be
.

carried out, for Black answers 4 B-B4

with 4 . K-B5 B-B7.
. . K-N2 5
Also practicable is 3 K-Bl and if . . .
,

4 B-B4, then 4 K-N2 5 B-Q3 . . .

B-Q8! 6 K-B5 B-N5, and White

cannot win, e.g., 7 B-B2 K-Nl 8 K-Q4
K-N2, etc.
The denouement of No. 235 proves
Y. Averbakh 1954 even more difficult to assess. Here, too.
White cannot capture the enemy pawn
K-K6 P-B4 2 K-K5 B-B7 3
234: 1 without surrendering his own passed
B-K6 K-N2 4 BxP R-Q8 5 B-KTf pawn. True, with the pawns further
Kx P 6 P-B5 K-B2 7 P-B6 B-R4. F rom apart the black king starts out farther
the foregoing situations, the futility of away from the white pawn after the

doggedly playing for a win becomes exchange, but, on the other hand.
obvious. White’s QNP has to cross through the
If White tries to crowd the black bishop’s diagonal three times (QN4,
bishop from the K5—QN8 diagonal QN6 and QN8), giving the black king
with 3 K-Q4, the natural 3 . . . B-N8 time for his approach.
loses, although White has to uncloak a 235: Capablanca played
96 Bishops of the Same Colour

BxB7KxBK-N58P-N5P-R5Ar^^) 3 Curiously, this rhove represents the

. .K-K44B-Q3!K-Q4(^. .B-0J5
. .
decisive mistake. The white king
B-MK-Q46BxPK-B57B-K2^ KxP intends a journey to the kingside to pick
8P-R5B-B49B-Q^B-K310P-R6B-N1 up the RP. However, the correct 1 . . .

11 K-Q4, etc.) 5 K-B4 K-Q5 6 B-K2 K-Nl! defeats this manoeuvre, e.g., 2
K-B6 7 BxP! BxB 8 P-N5, etc. K-N4 B-N2! 3 B-K2 (Both 3 K-N5
2 B-N6 B-Q8 P^R4! and 3 BxB KxB 4 K-B5 P-R4!
3 P-N5 K-Q4 leave a drawn ending.) 3 B-N7 4 . . .

4 K.— B4 K.— B4 K-B5 K-N2 5 K-Q6 KxP 6 K-K6

5 K-N5! B^K7! K-B3 7 K-B6 K-Q3 8 K-N6 K-K2 9
Black loses after 5 . . . KxP to 6 BxP KxP
7
K-Bl, drawing.
B-B7 7 B-K8+ K-B4 8 P-R5 K-Q3 9 2 B-B8! B-B8
K-B6!, etc. The threat was 3 K-R6.
B-K8!
6 3 B-N4 B-Q6
Incorrect would be 6 BxP? BxP 7 NowK-N2 no longer draws: 4
3 . . .

B- N4 B-Kl 8 B-B5 K-Q3 9 B-N6 B-B3+ K-Nl 5 K-N4 B~R3 6 K-B5

K-K2!, drawing. B-N2 7 BxB KxB 8 P-R5!, winning.
6 • • • K-N3 4 B-B3+ K-Q3
7 BxP BxP 5 B-N7 B-K7
8 B-N4 B-Kl 6 B-R6!
9 B-B5 K-B2 The bishops have waged an
10 B-N6 K-Ql instructive battle for the diagonals.
K-B6!
11 1-0 White weakens the black bishop by
White could still have erred with 1 forcing it QR3-KB8 diagonal
off the

BxB?, draw. onto the QR1-KR8 diagonal.

The game Eliaskases-Capablanca 6 . . . B-B6
provided chess literature with a very B-Bl B-N2 8 R-R3 K-K2 (If 5 . . .

informative endgame. K-B4 9 B-N4 K-B5, then 10 B^K2+

K-B4 11 B-R6 B-B6 12 B-B8, and the
white king reaches QR7.) 9 K-N5
K-Q3 B-N4 K-K2 il K-B5 B-N7
10
1 2 B-B8 K-Q\ 3 B-R6 B-B6 (After 13 1

. . . K-Q2, White triumphs with 14

B-B4 K~B1 15 B-Q5 BxB 16 KxB
K-N2 17 K-K5, etc.) 14 K-Q6 R-N7 15
B-B4 K-Bl 16 B-Q5 B-B8 (Finally, the
white king has freed a path for himself.)
17 K-K6 B-K7 18 K-B6 K-Q2 19
K-N6 P-R4 20 K-N5 K-Q3 21 B-B7
K-B3 22 BxP 1-0.
Eliskases-Capablanca,
The preceding example revealed
Semmering-Baden 1937
some of the problems incurred for the
239: realization of a pawn advantage.
1 B-R6f K-B3? Winning involved a fairly complicated
 1

Bishop and Two Pawns v. Bishop and Pawn 97

procedure even with five files KxP P-R5 23 K-Q^, drawing.) 22 KxP
separating the pawns. '

B-N4 B-Ql B-B5 24 B-R4

23
In No. 240 three files lie between the Note that 4 P-R4 5 B-Q3 P-R5 6
. . .

pawns. Notice how this condition P-R3! B-B3 7 B-B2 B-N4+ 8 K-Kl
aflfects the result. K-K4 9 B-Ql K-Q5 10 B-B2 K-B5 1

B-Ql K-B6 does not win, because of

the problem-like move 12 B-B2!!.
Black has not taken advantage of
White’s mistaken B-Q5? (Actually 1
1

K-Q2! P~K6-\r 2 K-Kl draws.) Rather

than 2 ... R-B4-f, returning the
favour, Black should have responded 2
. . . B-Q2! or 2 . . . B-Bl, e.g. 3 K-K2
[3 B-B4 K-B6
K-Q4 K-B7 5 P-R3 4
B-N5 6 K-K5 B-K7 7 B-K6 B-B8 8
B-M P-R4 9 K-B4 P-R5 10 B-R5 P-K7
11 BxP KxB, and Black wins.) 3 . . .

Seibold-Keres, corres 1934 B-NTf 4 K-Kl P-R4 5 P-R3 K-K4 6

R-N3 K-Q5 7 P-R4 (Or 7 B-B2 K-B6
The game progressed: B-Q5
240: 1 8 B-QJ B-B5 9 P-R4 B-N6, which wins
P-K6 2 K-Q3 B-B4+ 3 K-K2 B-Q2 4 for Black.) 7 B-Q2 8 K-K2 {8 B-B2
. . .

B-B4 K-K5 5 B-Q.3+ K-Q5 6 B-R6 K-B6 9 B-QJ Br-Kl!) 8 B-N5+ 9 . . .

B-N5+ 7 K-Kl K-B4 8 P-R4 (Black K-Kl K-B6 10 B-Q5 B-Q2 11 K-K2
threatened K-N5-R6, e.g., 8 B-N7
. . . BxP! 12 KxPB-N 4! 13K-B2 P-R5 14
K-N5 9 B-Q5 K-R6 10 B-B4 P~R4 11 K-Kl K-B7 15 B-K4+ K-B8 16 B-Q5
B-JV3 P-R5 12 B-B2 K-N5 13 B-K4 P-R6 17 B-K6 B-R5 18 B-Q5 K-B7 19
P-R6 14 B-Q5 K-B6 15 B-B7 K-X7 16 K-K2 B-N6, winning.
B-Q5 B-B4 17 K-K2 B-N8 18 KxP The key to Black’s triumph was the
BxP, etc.) 8 K-N5 9 B-N5 K-R4
. . .
location of White’s bishop along the
10 B-K8 P-R3 B-B6 K-N3 2 B-K8 1 1 1 Q,1-QN3 diagonal.
K-B4 13 K-Bl B-K3 14 K-K2 K-Q5
15 B-B6 B-B5+ 16 K-Kl K-B4 17
B^Q7 K-N5 18 B-B6 P-R4 19 B-Q7
(Black has pursued the standard plan,
employing his king to track the enemy
pawn. Unquestionably, White has
selected the best defence, ensuring
protection for the pawn by putting it on
a square the colour of the bishop.) 19
. . . B-N6 20 K-K2 BxP 21 B-N4!!
(The only drawing move; both 21 B-K6
B~N4+ 22 KxP K-B6 and 21 B-B5
B-N4+ 22 KxP K-B6 lose.) 21 . . .

K-B6 (On 21 .. B-K43- follows . 22 Keres-Lilienthal, Tallinn 1945

94 Bishops of the Same Colour

matters, while first exploring all

channels.
1 . . . P-N5
2 B-K3 B-B6
3 K-Q3 B-K8
1
4 B-Q2 B-B7
5 K-K4 B-B4?
After 5 K-B5 B-B4 7
. . . K -N2 6
B-B4 B-B7 8 B-K5+ K-Nl White has ,

no alternative but to shift the king to

QB4, drawing. The text move lets

White gain the necessary tempo.

Capablanca-Janowski, New York 1916
6 K-Q5! B-K2
Nor does 6 . . . B-B7 work, thanks to
K-K4 7 BxP K-N2 B-B3+ KxP 9 P-N4 8
Why not K-B5 P-N5 2 K-B4 B-K8
1 K-B2 10 B-Q4 B-N6 P-N5 B-B2 12 1 1

3 B-B5 K-N2 4 BxP.? K-B6 B-R4 13 B-K5, and eventually

Because a thorough analysis B-B7 and P-N6.
indicates that 4 . . . B-N6! draws. The 7 K-B4 K-N2
most precise response, as will be seen 8 BxP B-Ql
below, is 5 B— B3-)- KxP 6 P—N4 K—B2 9 B-B3+? KxP
7 P-N5 B-B2! and, clearly. White’s 10 P-N4 K-B4
QNP cannot queen. 11 K-Q5
The follow-up 8 K-Q5 K-K2 9 reaching position No. 191, which
K-B6 K-Ql 10 K-N7 K-Q2 reveals a Janowski resigned, although it has been
previously examined drawn position. proved a draw. Instead of 9 B-B3+?,
Nor does 4 . . . B-B7 lose, although White wins with 9 B-Q2!, as the
Black must find the study-like 5 B-B3-f analysis in No. 191 has already
KxP 6 P-N4 K-B2 B-Q4 B-N6 8 7 indicated.
P-N5 B-B2! 9 K-Q5 K-K2 10 K-B6 We conclude that a win in such
K-Ql 11 B-N6, and 11 ... K-Bl!!, positions normally entails substantial
saving the game. difficulties, since just one tempo can
B-R5 loses: 5
Strangely, only 4 . . . switch the outcome completely around.
B-B3+ KxP 6 P-N4 K-B2 7 P-N5 Not surprisingly. White cannot win
B-Ql {7 ... K-K3 8 P-N6 K~Q^ 9 No. 236.
K-N5, followed soon by P-K7 and 236: Let us examine a few sample
K-R6) 8 K-Q5 K-Kl 9 K-B6 variations:

succeeded eventually by B-B7 and 1 B-B2 B-N5

P-N7. Nor does 6 . . . K-B4 help on 2 B-R4+ K-B2!
account of 7K-Q5 B-Ql 8 P-N5 K-B5 The only move; after the bad 2 . . .

9 R-K5+ K-K6 10 K-B6 K-Q6 11 K-K2 3 K-K5 B-R6 4 P-B6 B-N7 5

B-B7 and 12 P-N6. P-B7 B-N2 6 B-N5! B-Bl 7 B-B4,
With the Capablanquesque 1 K-K4, Black can resign.
White patiently refrains from forcing 3 K-K5 B-R6!
 Bishop, and Two Pawns v. Bishop and Pawn 95

The assertive 3 . . . B-B4 loses to 4 K-K3 1 2 K-B4 {12 K-R5 Kx P 13 KxP

B-K3, draw) 12 . . . K-K2 13 B-N4
B— N6 14 B—B8 K— B2. Draw.
236

Shakhmaty v. SSSR 1937

Alekhine-Euwe, (3) 1937

B-N3K-Q2 5B-Q5!!PxB(5. ..B^R6
e P-B&y K-K2 7 B-N3 B-JO 8 B-R4 When treating a RP, whose bishop
B-B6 9 P-B7 B-N2 10 B-N5! or 6 .. . does not control the queening square,
K-B2 7 BxP B-N7 8 B-Q5) 6 KxB winning involves additional difficulties.
K-B3 7 K-K5 KxP 8 P-B5 K-B3 9 Study, for example. No. 238.
P-B6 K-Q2 10 KxP, etc.
4 B-N3
If 4 K-B6, then 4 K-Ql 5 K-B7 . . . !

(5 P-B6 K-B2 6 K-K7 B-N5 7 B-N3

P~K4!, draw) 5 B-N5 6 B-N5 B-B4
. . .

7 B-K8 B-N5 8 K-B8 B-K7! 9 P-B6

B-B5 10 B-Q7 B-Q4 11 K-N7 K-K2

draws.
4 . . . K-Q2
5 P-B6+ KxP 6 7 P-B5 BxP B-B8
B-Q6 8 P-B6 B-N3 9 B-N3 (After 9
K~B4 Black draws with 9 ... K-Q^ 10 Averbakh-Veresov, Moscow 1947
K-N5 B-Kl 11 B-M3 K-K4.) 9 ...
K-B4 10 K-B4 K-Q.3 11 K-N5 B-Kl 238: White’s pawn cannot advance
12 K-R6 K-K4 13 K-N7 K-B5, with a nor can his king attack the enemy
draw. pawn, because of the dominating
White’s attempts to win No. 237 also position of the black king. Yet White
prove futile. still wins, since his bishop can attack the
237: 1 K-R5 K-N2 3
K-R4 K-B3 2 black pawn. Were this pawn on KR3
p_K4 B-Q6 4 P-K5 B-N3+ 5 K-N4 instead. White probably could not win.
K-B2 6 B-Q5+ K-K2 7 K-B4 B-R2 8 1 . . . B-R5
P-N3 K-Bl {Or 8 .. K-Q2 9 B-K4 . If 1 ... B-Kl, then White triumphs
B-Nl 10 B-B5+ K-K2 11 B-B8 B-R2) with 2 B-B3 K-B4 3 B-K2! {3 K-Q^?
9 B-K4 B-Nl 10 B-B3 K-K2 11 K-N4 K-B5 4 ITQ5 K-M5 K-B5 Kx P6B-B6
98 Bishops of the Same Colour

We shall close this section with an

analysis of two situations treating

passed RP’s.
To repeat, a passed pawn becomes
especially effective when supported by
the king.
241: The white king both supports
and restrains his pawn. The outcome
rests on whether Black can keep the
white king confined.
1 K-R7 B-Q4 2 P-R4 B-B5 P-R5 3
B-Q4 4 B-K8! (Of course, not 4 P-R6 Alatortsev-Averbakh, Moscow 1950
when 4 .. .6-52 draws.) 4 B-K3 5
. . . .

KxP 5 BxB P-R7. However, after 2

P-R6 B-B2 6 B-Q7! B-B5 7 BxP! (The K-N 1 ! Black has accomplished
point.) 7 K-B2 8 B-Q7 B-Q6+ 9
. . .
nothing. The game continued 2 . . .

P-B5 K-Bl 10 B-K6, etc. B-Q7 3 B-B6 K-K7 4 K-R2 KxP 5

242: The black king has ample KxP
mobility, but can neither assist his own The RP proved a negative factor.
pawn nor attack the enemy’s. Were No. 242 placed one file to the left,
Black springs his last possibility, 1 . . . then 1P-K5 followed by 2
. . . . . .

B-K8. If White replies 2 B-R6, he loses K-Q6 would win immediately, which
to 2 . . . B-Q7! 3 B-N7 K-K6 4 B-R6+ the original position does not allow.
 13 ENDGAMES WITH MANY PAWNS

This section concerns endgames in which each side holds at least two pawns.

1 REALIZING A PAWN ADVANTAGE

In this kind of endgame a pawn introduce the various details of this

advantage usually wins. The winning plan. (See No. 243.)

process involves these basic steps:
a) Placing the king and bishop on their
optimal squares (strengthening the
position of the pieces);
b) Placing the pawns most advan-
* tageously in preparation for the
creation of a passed pawn;
c) Having co-ordinated pawns and
the
pieces, creating a passed pawn and
supporting its advance with the king;
Further operations depend on
Black’s defence.
d) If the enemy bishop attempts to Y. Averbakh 1954, after R. Fine 1941
blockade the passed pawn, the bishop
and king must ensure the pawn’s 243 : 1 K-Bl K-Bl 2 K-K2 K-Kl 3

advance by intercepting or deflecting K-Q3! (The king heads for its best

the opposing bishop; square, QB4, from where it can assist in

e) If the enemy king blockades the the formation of a passed pawn.) 3 . . .

pawn from a square the bishop cannot K-Q2 4 K-B4! (The king now occupies
attack, the pawn has been stopped; but its most influential post.) 4 . . . K-B3 5
the now incapacitated enemy king can B-B3 P-N3 6 P-QN4 B-N3 7 P-B3
only gaze about as the stronger side’s B-B2 8 P-QR4 B-N3 9 B-Q4 (The
king marches to the opposite flank and bishop joins the king in a strong
there accrues a decisive material centralized location, supporting the
advantage. eventual creation of a passed QNP.) 9
Analysis of some examples will . . . B-B2 10 P-N5+ (Having
100 Bishops of the "Same Colour

strengthened the positions of the pieces

and pawns, White progresses to the
next stage.) 10 . . . PxP 11 PxP+
K-N2 pawn with
(Trying to stop the
the bishop loses at once: 11 .. K-Qf 12 .

P~N6 B-N6 13 K-Q5 B^B5 14 B-K5,

etc., or//. .K-Qfl2B~B5^ K-Qf 13
.

P-N6 B-M 14 K-Q5 B-B5 15 B~Q4

followed by 16 B- K5.) 12 K.-Q5 (Events
have proceeded according to plan. The
passed pawn diverts the black king, and
now the white king can head for the Nei-Kan, Moscow 1952
enemy pawns.) 12 B-Nl (If 12 .. . . . .

B^B5 13 B~K5 B-K6, then 14 K-Q6, B-N2 B-B7 6 B-B3

Play resumed: 5
and in return for the QNP, White picks B-N6 7 B-K4 B-Q8 8 B-N2 P-R6! 9
up attwo kingside pawns.) 13
least KxP K-B4 10 B-K4 B-K7 11 P-B5
B-B2! (White makes no progress after B-B5 PxP RPxP 13 B-B3 BxP 14
12
13B-K5 B-R2 14 K-Q6 B-N1+ or 14 ,
P-R5 PxP 15 BxP K-B5 16 K-N2
B-Q6 B^Bl! 15 K-K5 B^N6+) 13 . . . K-Q6 17 P-N6 PxP 18 BxP+ K-Q7
B-B2 14 P-N3 P-R4 15 P-R4! (but not 19B-K8 B-B5 20 B-R5 P-K4 21 B-N6
15 P-B4? P-R5) \b .B-Nl 16 P-N6!, . . P-Q4 0-1.
and Black is in zugzwang. The threat is If White had played 8 P-B4, Black
17 P-B4 followed by 18 B-Q4 and 19 still would win following 8 P-R6! 9 . . .

B-K5, and if 16 ... K-Bl, then 17 B-Nl B-B7! 10 B-R2 B-B4 11 B-N3
K-B6 B-K4 18 P-B4 R-Nl 19 P-N7+ B-N8! 12 KxP K-B4 13 K-N2 K-N5!
K-Q.1 20 B-N6+ K-K2 21 B-B7 and (After 13 . . . B-B4?
K-B3, the black 14
wins. king cannot break through.) 14 P-B5
This study showed an ideal case. PxP P-Q6 PxP 16 BxP B-K5 17
15
White carried out his plan undisturbed, B-N8 P-Q4 18 BxP P-Q5 19 P-R5
while Black could do nothing. In P-Q6 20 BxP P-Q7.
practice various obstacles often arise, as Thus, we have introduced an
we shall observe below. important procedure. For the posi-
244: Black already has a passed tional advantage of an active king Black
pawn. First of all, he must improve the sacrificed the material advantage of his
position of his king. extra pawn. In turn, the active king
1 K-Kl 2 K-R3 K-Ql
. . . 3 K-N4 brought about a new material
K-B2 4 B-K4 K-N3. advantage. It is no exaggeration to state
The white king defends the only that an active king equals a pawn in
breakingthrough point for Black, QjB4 endgames with bishops of the same
(B). As a result. Black now must entice colour.
White’s king away with a pawn This interesting method, which we
offering, then move his own king into may term transforming the advantage,
QB4, this eventually securing him a will reappear frequently.
material advantage. 245: Here Black sealed 1 . . . P-N5,
 flndgames with many Pawns 101

245 246

Stein-Spassky, Fine-Kashdan, New York 1938

28th USSR Championship 1961
2 K-K3 K-B2
but resigned in view of the continuation 3 K Q4
2 PxP PxP 3 P-B5! B-B2 4 P-R5 The king has been centralized, but
K-Q4 5 K-Q3 B-Q3 6 P-R6 K-B3 7 he has yet to realize his purpose of
B-K3 B-B2 8 K-K4. It should be noted exploiting Black’s weak QjRP.
that, owing to the weakness of White’s 3 . . . P-QR4
K-side, the attempt to deflect the black White’s 4 K-B4 forces this move
king by immediately advancing the anyway, in view of the threat 5 K-N4.
outside passed pawn would not have 4 B-Q3
been successful: 3 P-R5 K-Q4 (but not White begins strengthening the
3.. . K-M4 K-Q^BxP5BxB KxB6 position of his bishop, so that it can
K-K4 K-N4 7 K-B5 K-B5 8 KxP K- Q6 support the king’s penetration to QN5.
9 K-B5 K-K7 10 K-B6 K-B6 11 P-B5 4 . . . B-Kl
K-B5 12 P-B3, and wins) 4 K-Q3 5 B-B4
'
B-Q2
P-B4! 5 P-R6 K-B3 6 B-K3 B-R4! {6 6 B-N3!
. B-R5 7 P-R7 K-N28 K-Q4 P-M9
. . Since White answers 6 . . . K-N2
P-B3! P-N7 10 B-Nl, and wins) 7 with 7 BxP (The continuation
P-B6-f !

K-Q4 B-K8 8 K-K5 P-N6 9 P-B3 (or 7. . . KxP8B-R4+ K-B29 BxB KxB
9 PxP BxP 10 KxP BxP) 9 B-B7 . . . 10 K-B5 gives White a winning king
with a draw. and pawn endgame.) 8 BxP K-B2 9
Perhaps an even more intricate task K-B5, and an easy win, Black has only
confronts White in No. 246. one move,
246: In which direction should the 6 . . . B-Bl
white king travel? 7 B-R4! B-R3!
Attacking the K-side pawns fails, as The game proceeded 7 B-N2 8 . . .

Black easily defends the invasion K-B4 B-R3+ 9 B-N5 B-Q2J0 K-N3
squares with . . . B-Kl Nor does White
. l-O, because the QRP is also lost.

seem able to penetrate to the black How can White now break through?
pawns on the Q-side, yet this plan wins He must sacrifice the passed pawn in

for White. order to open a path for the king.

1 K-B2 K-Ql 8 P-B6! K-N3!
102 Bishops of the Same Colour

9 P-B7! B B1 BxPK-K6) 11 .B-Q5 12BxB(or72

10 B-K8 KxP B-R2 K-K6! 13 B-J{1+ KxP! 14 BxB
11 K-B5 K-N6 15 Kx P Kx P and wins) 12...
Once he has given up the pawn, KxB 13 KxP K~K4! 14 K-K3 P-N4,
White can improve the position of his and White resigned in view' of the
king. following variation: 15 P-B4-t- (or 15
11 . . . B-R3 K-K2 K~B5 16 K-B2 P-B3!) 15 . . .

12 B-R4 P-N4 PxP+ 16 K-B3 P-B3 17 K-B2 K-K5

13 B-N3 B^ Bl 18 K-K2 P-B6+ 19 K-Bl K-K6 20
14 K-N5 B-Q2+ K-Kl P-B7+ 21 K-Bl K-K5! 22 KxP
15 KxP (or 22 K-N2 P-B8= Qf-) 22 K-B5, . . .

White has achieved his goal, creating and Black wins.

a passed QRP in exchange for the BP.
Nothing more obstructs the path of the
king, so the rest is K-N2 16
easy: 15 . . .

B-R4 B-Bl 7 1 K-N5 B-Q2+ 18 K-N4

B-Bl 19 K-B5 K-B2 (Else 20 K-Q6) 20
B-N3 B-Q2 21 P-QjR4 B~Bl 22 P-R5
B-Q,2 23 P-R6 B-Bl 24 B-B4 B-Q2 25
B-N5 B-Bl 26 P-N4, and Black can
resign.
In the following example Black is

able to set up a winning pawn ending

before sacrificing his extra pawn.

Botvinnik-Bondarevsky, match 1941

248: Black has to solve the problem of

how to attack the enemy pawns. Two
choices reach him: break through on
the Q-side or on the K-side.
1 . . . P-B4
According to Botvinnik, simplest was
1 .B-Q3 2 B-B2 B-B4 3 B-Kl K-N3
. .

4 B-Q2 B-Q3 5 K-Q4 K-B3 6 R-Kl

B-K4+ 7 K-Q3 K-B4 8 B-Q2 B-R8 9
B-Kl P-Q5 10 B-Q2 B-B6! (Enter the
Donner-Smyslov, Havana 1964 familiar pawn sacrifice to create an
invasion square.) 11 BxB PxB 12 KxP
247: B-R3+ 2 K-B2 P-Q6+ 3
1 . . . P-R4, and White must ultimately let

K-Ql K-Q5 4 B-B2+ K-B6 5 B-N6 the black king pass.

P-Q7! 6 B-B2 K-Q6 7 B-N6 B-B5 8 The game continuation allows White
B-B2 B-K4 9 B-Nl P-R5! (necessary to avert this plan: 2 B-B2 B-Q3 3 B-Q4

in order to create a winning pawn P-N3 4 B-K3 B-B4 5 B-N5, and by

ending) 10 B-B2 B-B6 11 B-Nl (or 11 attacking from the rear the bishop
 Endgames with many Pawns 103

keeps out the black king. Yet Black has

another, albeit
5
more complicated, plan
- a K-side invasion, which demands the
creation of an invasion square.
2 B-B2 K-Q3
B-R7
3 K-K3
4 B-K3 K-B3
K-K2 K-R4 7 B-Kl
B-Q2 K-N3 6
K-N4 8 B-Q2+ K-R5 9 B-K1+ B-N6
10 B-B3 P-N4 (Black consistently
traces his plan. Having placed his king
on the threshold of breaking through, Petrosian /a'inalK, Lcaiingrad 1946

he now commences to open lines.) 11

B-Q4 P-N5 12 B-B6+ K-R4 13
RPxP+ PxP 14 B-Q8 B-B5 15 B-K7 breakthrough on the kingside,
PxP+I (In the game Black played 15 marching the king to KB2 and playing
. . . P-N6?, foreclosing any opportunity P-KN4, has no future after P-R5, . . .

to break through with the king, and which shuts out the king. Only a pawn
K-Q^ K-N3 17 K-Q^ K-B2 18
after 16 sacrifice, hoping to create an invasion
B-R4 K-K3 19 B-Q8 P-KR4 20 B^R4 square on the queenside, holds any
K^Q^21 B-B6 K-B3 22 B-R4 found all promise.
winning channels closed to his king.) 16 1 P-R6! PxP
KxP B-K4 B-Q8 K-N3 18 B-K7
17 The evasive 1 ... P-N3 allows 2
K-B4 19 P-N4+ (Otherwise 19 .. .
P-QR4 succeeded by 3 PxP^- and 4
P-R4.) 19 . K-N3 20 B-Q8 B-B3 21
. . P-R5+.
B-R5 K-N4 (At last. Black locates an 2 K-R5 K-N2!
invasion square on the kingside, yet the Black, in any event, cannot defend
reduced number of pawns requires that the pawn. Zeinally played the weaker 2
he play precisely.) 22 B-Kl P-Q5 23 . . . B-Bl 3 P-KR4 B-Q2 4 BxRP
K-N3 B-K4+ K-B3 B-B2 25 24 K-Bl B-B8 B-B2 6 B-Q7 K-N2 7
5
B-Q2+ K-R5 26 B-K1+ K-R6 27 P_R4 K-B2 8 K-R6! KxB 9 K-N7
B-Q.2 B-Ql 28 B-B4 P-Q6 29 B-Q2 during the game, and was unable to
B-K2 30 B-B4 B-N5 31 P-N5 B-K2 32 prevent the queening of the QRP.
K-K3 K-N5 33 B-K5 BxP 34 KxP Considerably stronger is 2 . . . K-N2.
K-N6, and Black wins. 3 BxP+ K-B2!
249: White’s superiority seems slight, 4 B-B4 K-N2!
but he actually maintains a solid White reinforces his position and
positional plus. Black’s pieces lack creates a passed pawn. Yet, Black
mobility, and pawns occupy
all his continues to hold off the white king, and
squares the colour of the enemy bishop, mystery still shrouds how he intends to
i.e., lie open to assault. break through.
Could White’s king invade the 5 P-KR4 K-B2
enemy camp, the complexity of White’s On 5 . . . B-Bl decisive is 6 B-R6H-,
task would decrease. However, a and 5 . . . K-R2 6 B-R6 B-Kl 7 B-B8
104 Bishops of the Same Colour

R-B2 8 B-Q.7 K-N2 9 P- QR4 mimics 19 K-Q6 KxP

the game. Black proposes to let the 20 P-B6 K-N3
white king reach QR7 or QR8, since 21 P-B7 K-N2
this, at any rate, will obstruct the passed 22 K-K7!
pawn. and wins.
6 K-R6 B-B1+ It has become clear that often the
7 K-R7 outcome of bishop endgames, in fact, of
Step by step. White executes his plan. virtually all endings, depends on the

7
11
. . . B-Q2 availability of invasion squares. Even a

8 P-R4 B-Bl very substantial material and positional

9 P-R5 B-Q.2 advantage that lacks invasion squares
10 B-R6 B-Kl may prove meaningless.
11 B-B8!!
An unexpected blow, knocking the
air out of Black’s plans.
. . . KxB
Obviously forced. If Black tries 1 1 . . .

B-B2, then 12 B-Q7!! (The bishop

breezes through the enemy camp.) 12
. . . B-K8 B-R2 14 B-B7, etc.
B-Nl 13
12 K-N6 K-Nl
13 P-R6 K-Rl!
Or 13 B-Q2 14 P-R7+ K-Rl 15
. . .

K-B7 B-Kl 16 K-Q8 B-B2 17 K-K7

B-Nl 18 K-B8 B-R2 19 K-N7 (The N. Grigoriev 1931
ordinarily active bishop, now re-
strained by his own pawns, cannot run 250: In Grigoriev’s study. White not
away from the king!) 19 . . . KxP 20 only has an extra pawn but a positional
KxB K-R3 21 KxP K-N4 22 K-B6 superiority as well. Black’s pawns
KxP 23 KxP K-Q5 24 KxP P-B4 25 and stand vulnerable
restrain his pieces
P-K6, and the white pawn queens first. to an enemy bishop attack. Moreover,

14 K-B7 K-R2 White has a spatial advantage, thus

15 K-Q8 B-B2 more mobility. What he does not have,
16 K-K7 B-Nl however, an invasion square, and
is it

17 K-Q7! seems that he cannot win after ail.

White prolongs play with 17 K-B8 The black king effectively blockades
B-R2 18 K-N7, KxP 19
as after 18 . . . an attempt to create a passed pawn
KxB K-N4 20 KxP KxP 21 KxP after 1 P-N4. Nonetheless, White wins.
K-Q4, Black also queens. 1 B-N2 2 K-K3 B-Rl 3
B-B3!
17 . . . B-B2 K— K4! B—N2 4 K—B4! B-Rl (White has
On 17 . . . KxP comes 18 KxP B-B2 employed ‘triangulation’ to force the
19 K-Q7, and Black must give up his enemy bishop onto its most unfavour-
bishop for the QBP. able square, QRl .) 5 BxRPI! (With the
18 KxP B-K1+ black bishop out of play
 Endgames with many Pawns 105

White sacrifices a piece to establish an KBP.

square for combatting the
invasion square and create a passed B-R3 K-B5 2 B-K7! P-B6 3 B-Q8!
1

pawn.) 5 . . . KxB 6 P-N4H-! Now An extremely important move -

Black has two continuations: winning a tempo. The destruction of
A. 6 P-N5 PxP+ 8
. . . KxP 7 the KRP means nothing. 3 . . . BxKRP
K-K4! K-R4 {8 P-N59P-B6P~N6 . . . 4 B-N6 K-N4 P-R6 P-N5 6 B-B2
5
10 K-B3 K-R6 11 P-B7 P-N7 12 B-B2 7 P-N8-Q,+ BxQ.+8 K-N7!
!!

P~B8= d P-M= d 13 Q^R8 mate.) 9 White and Black have switched roles.

K-K5 P-N5 10 P-B6 P-N6 11 P-B7 Now Black has the extra pawn and
P-N7 12 P-B8 = Q P-N8 = Q 13 badly placed bishop, but he also has a
Q-R8+, and wins. lost position. 8 . . . K-R4 (No. 218) 9
B. 6 K-R3 7 P-N54- K-N2 8
. . . B-R4! K-N4 10 B-Kl! Black succumbs
P-R5! B-N2 9 P-R6+ K-B2 10 PxPi to zugzwang. He must play 10 . . .

KxP P-R7 K-N2 12 K-K5! KxP 13

1 1 P-N6 11 BxP BxB 12 P-R7 P-B7 13
K-Q6, and wins. P-R8 = Q^ P-B8=Q, but after 14
In these examples the imposing Q-R6-f he loses his queen.
problem of how to break through Positional defects can be so grave as
hindered the realization of a positional to negate completely any material
and /or material advantage. Eventually advantage. No. 252 depicts such a
a material sacrifice was necessary to situation.
create an invasion square.
If the opponent has a passed pawn or
can create one, he may set up a
powerful counterattack. Then a
material advantage becomes
insignificant and whoever queens first

wins.

Kotov-Estrin, Moscow 1952

252: The white king must either

support the advance of his extra pawn
or penetrate to the black pawns. The
weakness of White’s KBP prevents an
attack on the black pawns, e.g.,
O. Duras 1906
A. 1 B-B3 B-B4 2 B-Kl K-B3 3
K-Ql B-N3 K-K2 K-B4 5 K-K3
4
251: Here Black threatens to win with KxP+ 6 KxP K-N6 7 K-B4 KxP 8
1 . . . P-B6. White’s first move is forced: KxP K-N6 9 BxP BxP, draw, or
bring his bishop to the most effective B. K-Q2 B-N4+ 2 K-K2 K-B3 3
1
106 Bishops of the Same Colour

B-B3 K-N3! 4 P-B5+ KxP 5 BxP B-K8 K-K2 9 K-R5!! KxB 10 KxP
K-B3! (White wins if he can play B-N6 B-Nl 11 K-N6, and White wins.) 6 . . .

followed by P-R5.) 6 B-Q2 B-Ql 7 B-R2 7 P-Q5 (The tempting 7 B-K8

B-K3 B-R4 8 B-Q.2 (If
K-QJ, then <9 KxB 8 K-R5 K-B2 9 KxP B-Nl 10
Black plays 8 ... K-Q4 9 K-B2 K-B5. K-N5 K-K3 only draws, e.g., 11 P-R4
The continuation 8 B-R7 K-Q49 K-K3 B-B2 12 P-R5 B-Nl 13 P-R6- 3 K-N6 1

complicates Black’s task, but he has a 'B-B2+ - 13 .. B-R2 14 P-Q5N KxP

.

draw with 7 ..K-K4 8 B-.X8i- K-Q49

. 15 K-B6 K- Of 16 K-N7 K-K2! 17 Kx B
K-B4 B-N3 10 KxP BxP 11 P-R5 K-B2, etc.) 7 K-Q3! (The only
. . .

K-B3 12 P-R6 BxP!, etc.) 8 .B-Ql 9 . .

P-R5 K-N4 10 B-B3 B-N4. The white

king cannot attack the pawns.
An interesting variation succeeds 3
. K-B4?, as after 4 BxP
. . KxP 5
B-N6! K-N5 6 P-R5 K-N4 K-Ql 7

B-K2 8 K-Q2! B-N4+ 9 K-B3 B-B3T

10 K-N3 B— N4, White wins with 11
B-K3, 12 P-R6 and 13 K-B4.
In No. 253 an obvious plan attracts
White: attack the RP with the king.
Can Black impede this manoeuvre?
Stahlberg-Fine, Kemeri 1937

move to draw. Black did not find it and

instead played 7 . , . B-Nl? 8 B-N6
BxP 9 K-R5 K-B3 10 KxP B-K3 11
K-R7, winning for White - No. 241 .) 8
B-K8 K-K2 9 K-R5 KxB 10 KxP
B-Nl 11 P-Q6 K-Q2 12 P-R4 B-B2!,
or 8 B-B7 K-K2 9 K-R5 (If P B-K6,

Keres-Lilienthal, Tallinn 1945

253: 1 K-N3 B-Kl 2K-R4 K~B3 3

B-K6 B-N3 4 B-N3 K-Q3 5 B-Ql!
K-K2! (A loss results from 5. K-Q46 . .

B-R5 B^R2 7 B-B7+ KxP 8 K-R5

K-K5 9 KxP KxP 10 P-R4 K-N5 11
P-R5, etc.) 6 B-R5 (In the game White
eventually played B-R5. Note that after
6 B-K2, Black draws with 6 .. K-Bl! . Lilienthal-Tolush,
If 6" K-B3, then 7 B^R5 B-R2 8
. . . Parnu 1947
 ,

Endgames with many Pawns 107

then 9 .. . B-N3 10 K-N3 K-Q^ 11 B-R5 7 B-Q3 B-Kl 8 P-R4 P-N4, etc.

K-B2, and here Black draws with 11 .. . W e already know that an active king
B-R4, as after the exchange of pawns an frequently counts as much as a pawn.
equal endgame arises.) 9 . . . KxB 10 In our next example White sacrificed a
KxP B-Nl 11 P-Q6 K-B3! pawn to reach position No. 255.
With all the pawns on one flank, the 255: After P-R3 B-B2 2 B-N5
1

king often cannot attack the enemy K-B3 3 K-Q4 P-N4 4 B-Q3 PxP 5
pawns, and the game results in a draw. PxP B-K3 6 B-K2 B-N5 7 B-Q3
No. 254 is typical. B-B6, the players agreed to a draw. The
254:The ending concluded, 1 . . . strong centralized white king combined
P-B3 2 K-B5 B-Q2 3 B-N8 P-R3 4 with the weak black KRP prevents
K-Q5 B-R5 5 K-Q4 B-Q2 6 B-B4 Black from winning.

2 ENDINGS WITH A POSITIONAL ADVANTAGE

The location of the pieces and pawns White’s dangerous passed pawn, which
dictates the outcome of any position. In he can only do with his bishop.

bishop endings this involves the pawn

configuration and the location of the
bishops and kings. Of these factors, all
of which simultaneously interact and
may change, very likely the most stable
and fixed is the pawn formation.
Consequently, it will serve as the
foundation of our classification.
Earlier we saw that a positional
superiority can be equivalent to a
m-aterial advantage and that both are
interchangeable. In the next examples
one side holds a definite positional V. Platov 1922
superiority. Our job will consist of
establishing the type of advantage and 256: P-R6 BxP
1 2 P-R7 B-K5+ 3
then the method for its realization. P-B3! BxP+ {U 3 ... KxP, then 4
B-N6! distracting the bishop from its

real function of stopping the passed

a Passed pawns pawn.) 4 KxP P-Q5
B-R5! P-N5 6 5
BxP The bishop, forced to abandon its
The actual or potential presence of a diagonal, is no match for the passed
passed pawn exerts a powerful pawn.
influence on the outcome of these In No. 257 we reveal a classical
positions. example on the creation of a passed
Thus, in No. 256 Black must stop pawn.
108 Bishops of the Same Colour

257 258

+ /+

Goglidze-Bannik, Riga 1954 Balogh-Barcza, Budapest 1946

257:White wins with P-K5! PxP 2 1 theenemy king, thus opening up the
P-B5 PxP 3 P KN5!! PxP 4 PxP. In enemy pawns to attack. This procedure
spite of his large material advantage, results in a winning material
Black cannot draw, P-K5 5 e.g., 4 . . . superiority. Therefore, the method for
P-N6 P-K6+ 6 K-Kl B-N4 7 P-N7 realizing a positional advantage
P-Q6 8 P-N8 = Q, P-Q7+ 9 K-Ql consists of transforming it into a
B-R5+ 10 B-N3, etc. material superiority.
In the game White played P-KN5, 1 The game continued: 1 . . . K-B3 2
and after 1 . BPxP PxP 3
. . BPxP 2 K-B2 K-K4 3 P-R4 (If J K-K3, then 3
PxP K-N4 4 B-B7 Kx P 5 Bx P K-B4 6 . P-KN4 4 B-Bl P-B5+ 5 PxP
. .

B-R7-B-B5 7 P-N6 K-Q3, play ended PxP+ 6 K-Qf B-K5C 7 K-B3 P-B6,
in a draw. and the black king enters KN6.) 3 . . .

Frequently the enemy king joins in K-Q5 4 B^K2 B-K5 5 P-B5 P-R3 6
the fight against the passed pawn. In B-Bl P-KN4 7 PxPPxP 8B-K2P-B5
such cases he must be barred from the 9 PxP PxP 10 B-Bl B-B3 11 B-K2
arena, or, conversely, made to discover K-K5 12 B-B4 P-B6! 13 B-K6 {13
the passed pawn a mere decoy enticing B-Bl K-Q5) 13 K-Q6 14 B-N3 . . .

him away from the protection of his

own pawns. 259

258: Examine this situation. A
potential passed pawn looms on the K- W
side for Black. Moreover, White
possesses a much less active king. Also,
his doubled Q_-side pawns prevent the
creation of a passed pawn there, so
Black, in effect, stands a pawn ahead.
This advantage proves decisive. The
winning plan follows the stages
presented on page 99. Black co-
ordinates his pieces, and then creates a Eliskases-Capablanca
passed pawn which he uses to deflect Semmering Baden 1937
 Endgames with many Pawns 109

K-Q7 0-1 . The king captures all of the with the king. The game continued:
Q-side pawns, 1 K-K2 K-K3
259:
1
White can win the QRP, but 2 B-N4
after 1 BxP K-NS 2 B-QS P-B4 3 It is difficult to criticize this natural

PxP+ KxP, the active position of the move, but 2 B-N8, tying Black’s bishop
king and the reduced material give to the defence of his QRP, looks more
Black some drawing chances. Instead, logical.

White should reinforce the position of 2 ... P-Q5

his pieces. This apparently anti-positional
K-Q4! K-N3 2 B-B4! B-N5 3 move might be taken for a gesture of
P-K5 PxP 4 PxP P-R3 5 P-R4 B-R4 despair: Black voluntarily places his

6 P-K6 B-Kl; here the simplest win pawn on a square of the same colour as
follows 7 P-K7, e.g. 7 B-R4 8 . . . his which
bishop, is normally
K-K5 P-B4 9 PxP+ KxP 10 BxP, unfavourable. But in the given position
and the KP costs Black a piece. there is some justification for it - Black’s
king becomes more active, and in some
cases gains the chance to attack White’s
Q-side pawns.
3 K-Q3
Such natural moves are usually made
without much consideration, as it seems
to go without saying that they are the
best. But in fact the move is bad: White
loses the greater part of his advantage. 3
P-R5! was the correct continuation,
e.g. 3 . B-B2 {3 ... P-Q6+ 4 KxP
. .

Bx BP 5 K-B4 followed by 6 B-B5) 4

B-B5! K-Q4 5 BxRP BxQRP 6 K-Q3
Geller-Tan, Petropolis 1973
B-B6 R-N6 B-N7 8 B-Q8 K-B4 9
7
Analysis by Averbakh
P-N6 K~B3 10 B-B6, when White
[Shakhmaty v SSSR 1973)
captures the QP, and wins, though not
260: The first impression is that without having to overcome certain
White has a decisive positional technical difficulties.
advantage, and that the plan for 3 . . . K-Q4
realizing it will take the following 4 B- B8
standard form: after centralizing his Now after 4P-R5 B-B2 White can
king. White will create pawn
a passed no longer move his bishop to B5.
on the Q-side, thus diverting the enemy Therefore the bishop has to find
king, and will then march his own king another square from which to attack
over to the K-side pawns, picking up the QP.
the QP on the way. The only thing that 4 . . . B-R4
White should have to fear is that Black 5 B-N7 B-N3
may be able to set up a fortress, when it 6 P-B3 P~KR4
may be impossible to break through 7 P-R4
no Bishops of the Same Colour

One’s first inclination is to give this adjourned, and Bfack sealed his next
move a question mark - it is clearly move. A simple analysis showed that
anti-positional. But it is understandable after 11 P-QN4! 12 B-B2 B-R4 13
. . .

why Geller should make this move. The K-B2 B-N5 14 K-N3 B-Qy! White
point is that the natural 7 B-B6 wins the cannot win. Tan, however, sealed the
QP, since 7 bad on account
. . . B-B4 is move:
of 8 P-R5. But Black can reply 7 . . . 11 . . . B-K8
K-B4!, and after 8 BxP+ K-N5 Once again the bait plays its part!
exchange his weak pawn for one of the This move, as the same analysis
opponent’s good pawns, thus fully showed, loses by force.

equalizing. Realizing that he will be 12 P-R7 K-N2

unable to win the game by normal 13 BxP B^N6
methods (as a result of his mistake on No better is 13 ... BxP 14 P-B4
move 3), Geller resorts to extreme B-N6 {14. . . P-N4 15B-Q8) 15 B-K3,
measures - he earmarks for his KRP the and White’s king marches over to win
role of ‘bait’, and at the same time fixes the NP.
10 NP, hoping in the distant future
Black’s 14 K-K2
to attack it with his king. Black was threatening 14 . . . P-B5
7 . . . B-B4 with some drawing chances. But now
The bait plays its part. This move this move is ruled out because of 15
loses, whereas after the logical 7 . . . B-B2, and this unfortunate ending
K-B4 8 B-B8+ K-Q4 9 B-N4 B-Ql 10 draws to a conclusion.

B-Kl K-B4 Black would have had no 14 . . . B-K4

qualms about the future. 15 B-B2 B-Q3 16 K-Q3 B-B2 17 K-B4
8 P-R5 B-N5 P-B5 18 K-Q5 B-Q.1 19 K-K5 P-N4
9 P-N6 PxP 20 PxP BxP 21 K-B5 B-R3 22 B-B5
P-R6 Resigns.
The last move before the time If both sides can create or already
control, and, of course, a mistake. possess passed pawns, then, all other
White stumbles while on easy ground. things being equal, the stronger side
After the natural 10 PxP K-B3 1 1 KxP will be the one with the further
Black evidently cannot save the game. advanced passed pawn. Consider No.
For instance: 11 ... B-K2 12 K-K5 261.
BxP 13 K-K6 B-Ql 14KxP 15
P-N7! 261: Estimating this position
B-B6 B-N3 16 K-B7 K-B3 17 KxP statically, the advantage seems to be
P-B5 18 KxP K-Q4 19 K-N4 B-K6 20 Black’s: he has a passedpawn, a more
K-B5, and White must win, or 11 . . . active king, and White’s Q-side pawns
KxP 12 K-Q5 B-K2 13 K-K6 BxP 14 occupy squares the same colour as the
K-B7 P-B5 {14 .. P--N4 15 B-B6) 15 . white bishop. It is very important,
KxP K-B4 16 KxP B-N6 17 K-N4 however, to be able to evaluate an
K-Q4 18 K-B5 with the same result. ending dynamically, taking into
10 . . K-B3
. consideration the powerful changes
11 BxP that can occur. ObservingNo. 261 once
In this position the game was again, we notice that White blockades
 Endgames with many Pawns 111

P-QN4 PxP B-N7

8 PxP B-N4 9
P-N4 (The best chance; on P B-Q6 . . .

follows 10 B-B6 P-N4 11 PxP K-B4 12

P-N6, etc. Or 10 .. K-B4 11 P-N5 .

K-JV5- 11 . . . BxP 12 BxB K-N5 13

K-B2P-K6+ 14K-N2!,etc.-72P-A'6‘
B-R3 13 K~B2 P-K6^ 14 K-N2,
winning.) 10 BxP PxP 11 PxP B-R5,
and we have position No. 238, which
1 wins for White.
B. 4 ... B-Rl 5 B-Q7 B-N2 6
Averbakh-Veresov, Moscow 1947 P-QN4 PxP 7 PxP B-Rl 8 P-B5 PxP
9 PxP K-Q4 {9 ... B-Q4 10 B^K8
the passed pawn with his king and has K-B4 11 P-B6! K-N5 12 P~B7 B-K3 13
prepared a pawn assault on the Q,-side, BxP KxP 14 BxRP KxP 15 B-B7!
where he can produce a more B-Bl 16 KxP K-N4 17 K-K5 B^R3 18
dangerous, i.e., an outside passed B^K6 B-N2 19 B-R3 B-R3 20 K-Q6
pawn. Moreover, he can fix Black’s K-B3 21 K-B6, etc.) 10 B-K8 P-N4!
kingside pawns onto white squares, (After 10 .. Kx P White wins with 11
.

tying down the black pieces to their BxP K-Q3 12 BxRP K-K4 13 B-N6
defence. Therefore, in actuality White B-B314P-M.) 11 PxPKxP12B-N6!
commands a serious positional plus. B-Q4 13 BxKP B-Nl 14 K-B4 K-Q3
The game continued: 15 K-B5 K-K2 16 K-N6, winning.
P-KR4! Once more the distinct feature of a
White must fix the black pawns on passed pawn must be pointed out, its
white squares. capacity to deflect the enemy king. In
1 . . . B-Q2 this ability lies its strength.

2 B-Bl P-R4
3 B-N2! B-B3
Utilizing 3 ... B-B4, White’s 4
B-Rl! puts Black in zugzwang.
4 B-R3!
With each move White strengthens
his position. The white bishop obtains
more freedom, while the black bishop,
forced to defend his weak pawns,
becomes more passive. Lack of mobility
makes a bishop ‘bad’, so a ‘bad’ pawn
formation conveys with it a ‘bad’
bishop. Lisitsin-Levenfish, Leningrad 1932
A. 4 . . . P-QN4 (As played in the
game; for 4 . . . 3~R1, see Variation B.) 262: Black has a passed pawn;
5 PxP BxP B-B8 (The bishop
6 furthermore. White has a weak pawn to
invades the enemy camp.) 6 B-B3 7 . . . defend on KR4. In contrast, the small
112 Bishops of the Same Colour

amount of material remaining on the K-N5! 12 K-B2 B-Q.3 13 K-Bl K-B6,

1
board, the good location of the white etc.

king and the colour of the black KRP’s 4 . P-N5

. .

queening square being opposite that of 5 K-N5 B-K8

his bishop, all stand in White’s favour. Or 5 P-N6 when 6 K-B4 B-N6!
. . . 7

Play continued: KxP BxP 8 K-B4 draws.

B-N3 B-B6 2 K-Q3 B-K4 3 B-Kl 6 K-B4 BxP
K-B4 4 K-K3 B-B3! (Zugzwang. If 4 7 KxP B-K8+
K-K2, then 4 .. . K-B5, and any bishop 8K-B4 P-R5
move allows either the capture of the 9 K-Q3, with a draw.
KRP or the advance of the NP.) 5 P-B4 The BP fulfilled its mission by
B-N7 {5... K-N56K-K4B-K27P-B5 diverting the black king.
P-N5 8 BxP BxB 9 K-K3 K-M 10 When both sides have passed pawns,
K-K2 K-K7 11 P-B6, draw.) 6 B-Q2 the result depends on how near to the
B-N2 7 B-N4 B-B3 8 B-Kl B-K2! queening square the pawns stand and
(Forcing White to move his king.) 9 how effectively the enemy pieces can
K-B3 B-Q3 10 B-Q2 B-B2! 11 B-B3 oppose their advance.
BxP 12 R-N4 B-K4 13 B-R5 B-B3 14
R-Kl B-K2! 15 K-N3 K-K5. The
simplestwin for Black prepares for an
immediate advance of the NP, e.g., 16
B-R5 K-Q6 17 B-Kl K-B5 18 K-B3
B-N5 19 B-N3 B-B6 20 B-Q6 B-Q5 21
B-K7 B-B4 22 B-Q8 P-N5 23 K-K2
P-N6 24 K-Q2 B-K6+ 25 K-Ql
K-Q6 26 B-B6 B-Q5 27 BxB KxB 28
K-Q2 K-B5, etc.

However, White missed his best

variation, for he could have drawn with
1 P-B4!
Euwe-Lilienthal, Stockholm 1937
for example,
1 . . . B-K8 263: Both sides have at their disposal
2 P-B5+ K-B2 a simple plan: advance the passed
3 K-Q5! B-R7 pawns as far as possible and guard
3 . K-B5 B-B7+ 5 KxP
. . BxP 4 against blockade. The side with the
P-R5 6 K-B4 B-N6 7 K-Q3!! BxB 8 most dangerous passed pawn wins.
K-K2 P-R6 9 K-B2 B-R7 10 K-B3, White proceeded 1 P-R7 K-K4 2
draw. B-B7! R-N2 3 P-R5! P-KB5 (No
4 K-B6!! salvation arrives with 3 .. . K-B3 4
4 B-B3 BxPK-B5 B-N6 6 KxP
5 B-M B-Q4 5 K-Q^! K-M 6 B-B7!
P-R5 7 B-Q4 P-R6 8 B-Nl K-B3 9 B-Rl 7 K-B4 and 8 B-Q5.) 4 P-R6
K-B4 KxP 10 K-Q3 E^B2! {10 .. . K B3 5 P-R7 K-N2 6 K-B4 P-B6 7
K-B5? 11 K-K2 K-K5 12 K-Bl K-B6 13 B-N6! (Here Euwe played 7 B-Q5??,
B-B2! P-R7 14 B-JVU, draw) K-K3 1 1 and had to resign after 7 . . . P-B7.) 1
 Endgames with many Pawns 113

. . . P-B7 8 B-Q3 B-R3+ {8 .. . 1 . . . P-K5

B-R6! K-Ql 3 B-N5 2
P~B8^Q9 BxdKxP 10 KxP, etc.) 9 P-N4 {Or 3... K-K2 4 P-N5! K-Qj 5
KxP BxB 10 P-R8 = Q, winning. P~B6 P-K6+ 6 K-JV3 B-K5 7 K-B4
Now observe situations where both P-K7 8 P-B7+ K~B1 9 BxP, etc.) 4
sides have two connected passed pawns. P-B6 P-R3 5 P-R3 P K6+ 6 K-K2
B-K5 7 P-B7+ K-Bl 8 B-R6+ B-N2 9
B-Q3! B-B3 10 B-B5+ B-Q,2 K-Q3, 1 1

winning.
In the game there occurred 1 . . .

P_N4 2 B-N5 K-K2 4

B-R6 K-Ql 3
P-B6 K-Q3 5 P-B7 B-N2 6 B-Q3
K B4 7 B-B5 KxP 8 P-B8 = Q,BxQ,9
BxB P-K5 10 B-B5 P-K6+ 11 K-B3
P-R3 12 B-Q3 1-0.
266: The following study by Duras
contains an idea which has often proved
useful in practice, (cf. positions 361 and
Shakhmatny Listok 1924
362)
more advanced, Black’s
264: Being
pawns prove a greater menace than
White’s; furthermore, his king occupies
a fine location. After B-N5! 2
1 . . .

P-N5 P-K6+ 3 K-Ki P-Q6 4 B-B3

B-K3 5 P-N6 PxP 6 PxP K-Q3 7

P-QR4 B-N6!, Black wins, due to the

threat 8 . . . P-Q7+ K-Bl B-B5+ 10
9
K-Nl P-K7, etc. Nor does 8 B-Ql
work, because of 8 . . . B-B5.

265

I-
O. Duras 1906

1 P-N8 = Q,+ BxQ+ 2 K-N7!

K-R4 P-M6 3 BxP BxB 4
(or 2 . . .

P-R7 P-B7 5 P-R8=(l P-B8=(l 6

Q-R6+) 3 B-R4 K-N4 4 B-Kl, and
Black is in zugzwang.
A king blockade represents the most
Alatortsev-Levenfish, Leningrad 1934
effective restraining device to use

265: Here, in contrast, the flank against passed pawns. Precisely because
pawns outweigh the centre pawns. blockaded pawns lose most of their
(Variation by Alatortsev.) value, two connected passed pawns
114 Bishops of the Same Colour

may prove weaker than two isolanis, as the creation of~a‘li advanced passed
the former group can be blockaded by pawn. Clearly, White has no
the king. winning chances. But does Black? Let
us examine some sample variations.

268

/+

Strandstrem-Belova, Riga 1950

Fridstein-Averbakh, Tula 1950
267 : 1 K-B4! K-B4 2 K-KS K-Q3 3
B-R3 (Having blockaded the enemy 1 . . . P-R5 2 B-B5 (If 2 K-B2, then 2
pawns, White proceeds to the next . . . B-N3.) 2 . B-K7+!! 3 K-B2
. .

stage, activation of the bishop before P-R6! At first this solution appears
pushing the pawns.) 3 K-B4 (On 3 . . . surprising. Black not only has not
. K-K2 would follow 4 B-B5 K-Q^ 5
. . acquired a passed pawn, but
K-Q4 K-K2 6 B-N4 K-Qf 7 P-KN6, antithetically seems to have removed
and since the lone bishop cannot any chance for creating one. In reality,

simultaneously stop the pawns on both however. Black offers the strongest
B-Q7 B-B5 (To 4
wings. White wins.) 4 move, as the white king must now
... K- Of White responds with 5 B-K8 defend a fixed weakness, the QRP. 4
K-K2 6 B-R5! K-K3 7 K-Q4 K-Qf 8 B-N6 B-B5 5 K-Nl R-Q6+! 6 K^Bl.
P-KM, etc.) 5 P-KN6 K-Q3 6 B-K8 Black surveys a considerably improved
K-K2 7 P-R6! PxP 8 P-Nb! B-Q4 9 situation. The threat of . . . P-N6
P-KN7 K-Ql 10 P-N7 K-B2 B-B6! 1 1 prevents the white king from moving.
(The rest is BxP
easy.) 11 . . . B-Nl 12 Yet, White’s intimidating P-Q6 also
P-R413B-B61P-R5 14BxRPKxPl5 keeps the black king from attacking the
KxP K-B2 16 K-B4, and White wins. white pawns. The squares KB5, KN6,
Position No. 268 might have KR7 make up the bishop’s free squares.
transpired in the game Fridstein- Obviously, once the black king reaches
Averbakh, had White found the best . . . KN2, White must acknowledge
defence. Who stands better? zugzwang; herein lies the solution, and
268: White holds a
Although K-QS! 7
Black emerges the victor. 6 . . .

protected passed pawn, all his pawns lie B-B5 K-K2 8 B-N6 K-B3 9 B-R7
under potential siege to the enemy K-B2! 10 B— B5 K-N2! Mission
bishop. Moreover, Black has activated accomplished. White has to advance
his king and it stands ready to assist in the QF. 1 1 P-Q6 K-B3 1 2 F-Ql K-K2
 Endgames with many Pawns 115

13 B-N 6 KxP. Now the black king can BxP B-Q^ 10 BxP B-Kl 11 B-K6+
head Q5.
for K-R2 12 B-B7 B-Q^ 13 P-K8 =Qn,
Cannot White expose a stronger etc. Black exploits his last resource, the

continuation, e.g., 2 B-N4 B-Kl 3 possible establishment of an outside

P-R 3 PxP! (Black allows a draw with
! passed pawn.) 7 K-K7! (In the game
3... P-N64 K-B3.) 4 K-B2? But even Flohr found 7 P-K7?, and after 7 . . .

then Black wins: 4 B-N 4 5 B-B5 . . . ! P-N6 8 PxP PxP 9 B-Bl B-Q^, the
B-Q6+!! (Most precise.) 6 K-Bl P-R7 black ‘bishop came to life and White
7 K-N2 B-N8 8 B-N6 P-R6+ 9 K-Rl could not win.) 7 . . . P-N6 8 PxP PxP
K-Q3 !, etc., as in the game. 9 B-K 4 BxP (The position
10 KxP
remains sharp, but White holds the
more dangerous pawns.) 10 K-Bl . . .

11 K-K5 B-B5 12 P-Q6 BxRP 13

P-K7-!-, winning.
We conclude this section on passed
pawns with an elegant study.

Flohr-Zagorovsky, Minsk 1952

269: The evaluation of this position

deep thought. White has a
also requires
strong protected passed pawn and a
more active king, but his central pawns
L. Kubbel 1934
abide on vulnerable white squares.
Black has all the ingredients for

creating a passed pawn on the kingside. 270: Black’s strong passed pawn
The continuation: threatens to advance. White finds the

1 B-Q3 ! (Limiting the scope of the only restraining manoeuvre.

black bishop and eliminating all of its B-Q6 + K-B 2 2 B-B5 K-K 3 3
1

moves; the exchange of bishops B-Q 4 B-K 8 4 BxKP B-Q7 (Black

!

following 7 . . . .S-jVC? leaves White with comes up with a new threat.) 5 B-N5
a won king and pawn ending.) 1 . . . K-B 4 6 P-B4 BxP 7 K-R5! BxB,
P-QR5 2 P-N4 P-R 6 3 P-N 5 (White !
stalemate!
has restricted the black bishop
completely. Now only the black king
b Defending pawns and bishop on
can move.) 3 . . . K-B4 K-Bl 5
K-Nl 4
the same coloured squares
K-B5 K-Nl 6 K-B6 P-R5 (If Black
tries K-Bl, then White answers
6 .. .
In the present type of endgame, the
with 7 P-K7y- K-Nl 8 B-N6 BxP 9 pawns and bishop occupying squares of
116 Bishops of the Same Colour

the same colour generally add up to a value of the -white bishop and,
positional minus. First of all, these moreover. Black has better placed K-
pawns lie wide-open to an enemy side pawns. Observe how these
bishop attack, and thus require circumstances lead to victory.
protection, and, secondly, the bishop
cannot patrol the squares to either side
of the pawn, which encourages an
enemy assault against the pawns.
Examine No. 271.

Smyslov-Keres, Moscow 1951

272: 1 . . . B-N8 2 P-R3 P-QR4!

(Fixing the pawns onto white squares.)
3 B-Ql K-N3 4 K-N2 K-B4 5 K-B3
Kamishov-Shamaev, corres 1936
K-K4 (Since his bishop can no longer
move, sooner or later White will run out
271: Black’s weak QNP implores the of moves and fall into .zugzwang.) 6
bishop’s support. From this situation, P-QR4 P-KN4 7 K-K2 B-B4! 8
we observe that a weak pawn hinders P-KN4 (Clearly forced. On 5 P-R4
the mobility of its guard, i.e., the bishop would follow 8 .. B-N3C with a won .

becomes ‘bad’. pawn endgame.) 8 B-N8 9 K-B3 . . .

The
game proceeded, K-Q4 1 P-B4 10 PxP (If White refuses the
P-KR4 2 P-R3 K-B4 3 B-B7! P-R5 4 exchange, playing 10 K-K2 instead.
B-R5 K-B5 (Or ^ K-B3 5 B-B3, . . . Black responds 10 .. B-K5 11 K-B2
.

and Black stands in zugzwang; he must P-B5 and after 12 PxP^r KxP, White
let the white king pass through KS.) 5 immediately succumbs zugzwang to
B-B3 K-N6 BxP6 BxP, etc., or
(5 . . . and a forced entry by the enemy king.)
5. . . P-N56PxPP-R67 PxP! KxB8 10 . . . KxP 11 K-B2 B-K5 12 K-N3
K-K5!, and White wins.) K-K3 6 K-N3 (Bringing his last reserve, the
K-R7 7 K-B2! K-R8 8 P-N3+ K-R7 ! KRP, into action.) 13 K-B2 P-R4 14
9 PxP PxP 10 B-N4, etc. K-N3 P-R5+ 15 K-B2 B-B4 16 K-N2
Pawn weaknesses will lead to less K-B3 17 K-R2 K-K3. White resigns in
active pieces and may result in view of 18 K-N2 K-K4 19 K-R2 B-N8
zugzwang. 20 K-N2 K-K5, and the black king
In No. 272 Black unquestionably passes into white territory, e.g., 21
maintains the superior position. The K-B2 K-Q6 22 K-B3 K-Q7 23 B-K2
weak white Q-side pawns reduce the B-B4 24 P-K4 BxP+ 25 KxB KxB 26
 'Endgames with many Pawns 117

K-B5 K-B6 27 KxP K-N6, etc. KxP K-Ql 8 K-N6 B-Kl 9 K-B5
j

The examples Just given illustrate K-B2, White puts Black in zugzwang
how to win endgames of this general by 10 B-Q3.
type.

1) enemy pawns;
Fixing the 274
2) Forcing the enemy pieces to defend
/-
the weak pawns;
3) Strengthening the king’s position;
occupation of access squares to the
enemy camp;
4) Culminating the process by setting
the opponent in zugzwang, making any
move lead to a decisive weakening of
the position, either an incursion of the
hostile king or a direct loss of material.
As usual, a very important moment Hort-Donner, Skopje 1972
in the realization of the winning plan {Shakhmaty v SSSR 1973)
arrives when the possibility for a king
breakthrough appears. 274: Here Black resigned, for the
following reason: after 1 ... B-N2
White breaks through by the
temporary sacrifice 2 P-Q6+ PxPH- 3
K-Q5 K~Q\ 4 B-N6+ K-K2 5 B-B7.

275

Estrin-Ivashin, corres 1947

273: White’s obvious superiority

hides the fact that were Black on move
he could push 1 . . . P-N3 and draw, Pirc-Udovcic, Opatija 1953
since the white king then lacks a
breaking through point. As a result. 275: Here the threat of BxRP ties

White playsr Black’s bishop to one square, QB3, . . .

P-N4! PxP (With

1 7 . . . P-N3 2 so that White has a free hand to
PxPPx P3B-N5! K-Bl 4 K-N2, Black engineer a break-through on the K-
falls into zugzwang.) 2 B-B2! B-B3 3 side. The game concluded P-R5 1

K_N2 P-N3 4 K-N 3 K-Bl 5 KxP K-B3 2 P R6 K B2 3 K-R3 K-Nl 4

K-Kl 6 P-R5! 1-0. After 6 PxP+ 7 . . . K-R4, and Black resigned, since after 4
118 Bishops of the Same Colour

. . . K-Bl 5 K-N5 K-B 2 6 P-N4 he is in K-Q2 14 K-Q4 K-QJ {Ul4 . . . K-K2,

zugzwang, e.g. 6 . . . K-K 2 7 BxNP. then 15 B-R6; the game concluded 14
Sometimes, when locating an . P-N4 15 BPxP B-N3 16 K-K3
.*.

invasion square becomes impossible, B-B7 17 P-N6 BxP 18 K-B4 B-B4 19

only a piece sacrifice opens a pathway. B-K2 -0 15 K-K3 K-Q2 16 P-B5!
1 .)

NPxP 17 K-B4 B-N3 18 K-N5 B-Kl

19 K-B6 P-B5 20 B-K 2 and White
,

wins.
Often the execution of a winning
plan depends upon whether the
initiator can place the opponent in
zugzwang. Even a large positional
advantage means nothing if the enemy
possesses sufficient defensive resources
and does not run out of useful moves.
Consider No. 277.

Baslavsky-Kondratiev, Tallinn 1947

276: The black pawns tie down the

black pieces, but remain unassailable to
the white king.
K-K3 K-B2 2 K-Q4 B-Kl 3 K-B 3
1

K-K 2 4 K-N3 K-Q\ 5 K-R4 K-B 2 6

K-R5 B-B 2 (The black king cannot
budge, nor does the bishop have many
moves.) 7 B-B4! B-Nl (Were the white
bishop capable of attacking the KP and
KNP simultaneously. White’s extra Teichmann-Marshall,
pawn tempi would immediately put San Sebastian 1911
Black in zugzwang. But, being unable 277: Black commands a superior
to realize this plan. White advances his pawn formation plus an active king
pawns to create yet another black ready to invade White’s territory.
weakness, the QNP, pinning the king to The game continued B-B2+ 21 . . .

its defence. Then he marches his king to K-Q3 K-B5 3 B-Bl! K-N6 4 K-K 3
the opposite flank and penetrates after B-Q4 5 K-K2 P-B4 (The black king
the sacrifice P-B5.) 8 P-R4 B-B 2 9 edges his way into the enemy camp,
P-N5 RPxP 10 PxP B-Nl (Or 10 . . . incarcerating White’s bishop. Mean-
PxP 11 Bx JVP B-Nl B-K8 B-R2 13
12 while, the white king has freedom to
B-B7, etc.) 11 P-N 6 +! K-Q\ 12 K-N4 roam through three squares from where
B-B 2 (Cornered, the black pieces he can defend KB2. Black, incapable of
cannot effect the necessary regrouping, imposing zugzwang, can only advance
protecting the QNP with the bishop his pawns, reducing the amount of
and the KNP with the king.) 13 K-B 3 material.) 6 K-K3 B-K3 [6
 Endgames with many Pawns 119

. . . K~K2 B-M28 K-Kl BxP

P~B9^ 7 P-B5 P-R6 15 P-B6) 14K-k2B-B4! 15
9 PxBKxP 10 B-K2+ K-M7 11 B-B1+ K-Kl B-N5!
K-N6 12 K-K2, draw.) 7 K-K2 P-N5 8 All this analysis passed Marshall’s
RPxP PxP 9 K-K3 (If PxP, then 9 contemporaries unnoticed. Even Euwe
. . . K-K3 B-Q^, and White
BxP-\- 10 put No. 277 in his book without
stands badly.) 9 B-Q2 10 PxP BxP . . . pointing out the above possibilities.
(See No. 210.) 11 K-K4? B-Bl 12
K-K3 B-Q,2 0-1.
However, had he played 11 B-N5!,
he would have drawn!
That White really can draw No. 277
seems highly unlikely. And, in fact,
analysis shows that Black has played
inaccurately. Instead of 1 ... B-B2H-,
he easily wins with 1 . . . B-N8!, which
keeps the white king from guarding his
pawns, e.g., 2 B-Bl {2 B-Q^ B-R7-\- ! 3
K-B5 K-B5 4 K-Q4 K-N6, etc.) 2 . . .

K-B5 3 K-Q4 (Counter-attacking Averbakh-Matanovic, Belgrade 1961

fails: 3 K-Q5 K-N6 4 K-K6 P-B4 5

K-B6 K-B7 6 B-B4 KxP7 KxPKx RP 278: Black has two main weaknesses -
8 P-B4 K-N6, etc.) 3 . . . P-B4! one fixed at . .
.
QR3, and a second not
(Zugzwang. White is forced to admit yet fixed at . . . KN3. In order to win
the black king onto the crucial square, White must fix the latter, after which
KB7.) 4 K-Q5 K-K6 5 K-K6 K-B7 6 Black will inevitably drift into
B-B4 KxP 7 K-B6 KxRP 8 KxP zugzwang.
K-N6, and the RP queens. 1 P-B4 P-B4 (This makes White’s
Interestingly, both sides traded task much easier. We will examine the
mistakes again during the later course strongest continuation 1 ... P-R3
of the game. afterwards.) 2 P-R4 K-Q3 3 P-R5
Thus, instead of 8 RPxP?, the PxP (Black has nothing better. After 3
decisive error. White should have . . White wins by ^ P-R6 K-Q^5
. A"-

continued 8 BPxP! PxP 9 K-K3, K-B3 K-B4 6 B-K2 B-N2 7 P-M4 Px P

which really does lead to a draw, e.g., 9 8 BxNP K-N4 9 P-B5.) 4 K-B 3 ! (A
. PxP (9
. . . . . B^Q2 10 PxP!, etc.) 10 step backwards in order to later make
PxP B-Q2 11 K-K2 B-N4+ 12 K-Kl two steps forward. In this position the

B-B3 13 K-K2, etc. game was adjourned, and Black

Black’s ninth move, 9 . . . B-Q2?, lets resigned without resuming.) White
victory slip away. Correct was 9 . . . gains a material advantage through
PxP! 10 PxP, and only then 10 . . . application of the zugzwang mech-
B-Q2, when Black wins after 11 P -B4 anism after 4 . . . K-B4 5 B-Bl B-N2 6 !

B-N 5 (Zugzwang.) 12 K-K4 K-B7, as

! B-K 2 B-Bl 7 B-Q3 ! Black can gain no
well as after K-K2 B-N4H- 12 K-Kl
1 1 respite by 7 ... P-Q5+ 8 PxP+
B-B3 13 P-B4 B-K5! [13 B^K7 14 . . .
K-Q4, as after 9 B-B44- K-Q3
120 Bishops of the Same Colour

10 P-Q5 K-B4 11 P-Q6! KxP 12 resigned, for B-Nl, then 18

if 17 ...
K Q4 B-N2 13 B-Bl! White sets the BxP B-K3 19~B-N6 B-Q2 20 B-B7
same mechanism in motion, and drives B-B3 21 B-K6 etc.

back the black king.

What would have happened if Black
had chosen the correct continuation 1
. P-R3.? In this case 2 P-K4! PxP3
. .

BxKP-f K-Q3 4 K-B4 wins, e.g. 4 . . .

B-N5 5 K-Q4 B-K? 6 B-B2 B-N5 7

B-Q3 B-Bl 8 P-R4 B-N2 9 P-N4!
B-Bl 10P-N5 PxP 11 RPxPB-N 2 12
B-B4, and Black’s two weaknesses lead
to zugzwang and defeat.

R. G. Wade c. 1950

280: In order to win Black must

penetrate with his king to one of the key
squares . . QB5,
. Q6 or K5. By . . .
. . .

patient manoeuvring he is able to

achieve this.

2K-B3 {not 2 B^N2B-K6)

1 . . .B-B7
2 K-R5 3 B^Q2 B-R5 4 K-N2 (if 4
. . .

B-K3 or 4 then 4 .. B-K8-\- .

Yanofsky-Pinkus, Ventnor City 1942

followed by K-N5 and K-N6, as . . . , , .

in the main variation) 4. . .B-B35K-B3

279: This is another example of (if 5 B-K3, then 5 . . .K—N5, while on 5
White using the zugzwang weapon to B-B3 there follows 5 B-K2 6 B-Q2
. . .

make progress. Here Black will have B-N5 7 B^K3{B1) B^K8 followed by 8
three weaknesses to guard - his QP, . K-N5) 5
. . B-K2 6 K-N2 (or 6 . . .

KBP and . . .
QR3 square against B-K3{B1) Br-N53- 7 K-B2 B-K8 and 8
invasion by the white king. The game . K-N5, as before) 6
. . B-N5 7 B- K3 . . .

continued: B-K8 8 K-B2 K-N5 9 K-Q3 K-N6 10

1 P-KR5 PxP (otherwise comes 2 B-Bl B-R4 11 B-K3 K-N7 12 B-B2
PxPFxP3B-N5+ and4 5-A5) 2 BxP K-B8 13 B-K3+ K-Q8.
K-N3 3 P-R5+ K-B3 4 B-K8+ K-Q3 Now White has the following
5 K-N5 K-K2 6 B-R5 K-Q3 7 B-K2 possibilities:

B-N2 8 B-Q3 B-Bl 9 B-B2 (zugzwang; a) 14 B-Qj2 B-B2 15 B-K3 K-K8, when
Black must abandon either his KBP or Black’s king attacks the BP.
QRP) 9 P-KR3 10 B-Q3 B-Q2+
. . . b) B-N3 B-B8 16
14 B-B2 B-Q7 15
11 K-R6 K-B2 12 KxP B-Bl 13 B-B2 B- R2 K-K8 17 B-N3+ K-B8 18 K-B2
P-R4 14 B-Ql K-B3 15 B-R4+ K-B2 B-K6 19 K-Q3 K-N7, winning the BP.
16 B-K8 B-K3 17 P-R6, and Black c) 14 B-Nl B-Q.7 15 B-R2 B-K8 16
 Endgames with many Pawns 121

B-Nl B-N6 17 B-Ks K-K8, again compels 4 . . . B-B2 and 4 B-Q] the
winning the BP. follow-up 4 . . . B-Kl. For the time
being Black can find moves, but the
QNI-KR7 (W) diagonal contains
three squares for White and only two
for Black. Consequently, White can
move his bishop to the third square and
Black cannot respond with a co-
ordinate.
4 B-Nl!! B-R2
But the KR2 (B) square corresponds
to White’s 03'
5 B-03! R-N3
6 B-B2! B-R2
Y. Averbakh 1954 7 B-N3!! B-Nl
8 B-Q}\ B-B2
281: Black has just about exhausted 9 B-B3
his defensive resources. His bishop reaching the previous position, but with
protects the weak pawns, while his king Black to move.
guards against a white king invasion. Black lost because his bishop had
White’s task involves turning the move only two co-ordinate squares to White’s
over to Black, thus forcing him either to three. By occupying the third square,
part with a pawn or to allow the the white bishop was able to break the
penetration of the white king, both of co-ordination.
which lose. The method of ‘co-ordinate’ squares
But how does White cede the move to can successfully solve complex
Black? Let us examine the position blockaded positions.
thoroughly. Observe the following example:
1 B-K2 B-N3!
Most stubborn. After 1 B-Kl, . . .

White finishes with 2 B-Q3 B-NS (If 2

. B-Q2 3 B-B2, then either 3 ..
. . .

B-K3 4 B-QJ! B-B2 5 B-B3, or 3 . . .

B-Bl after which 4 B~QJ quickly leads

to the capture of the KRP.) 3 B-B2
B-R2 4 B-N3! B-Nl 5 B-Q]! B-B2 6
B-B3, etc.

2 B-Q3 B-R2
3 B-B2 B-N3
Notice that Black’s bishop moves
have been forced, i.e., a typical case of Y. Averbakh 1954
‘co-ordinate’ squares appears in which
each White move requires a specific 282: White must cede the move to
response from Black. So 4 B-N3 Black, as 1 ... B-Q3 and 1 B-Bl . . .
122 Bishops of the Same Colour

bring about the decisive 2 B-Bl B-K2 3 With one glance at the table we can
B-K3, winning a pawn. formulate the solution directly:
The threat P-N4?? only draws after 1 1 B-N2 B-B3! B-B3 B-Rl!3B-Kl!
2
1 PxP 2 BxP BxB, locking out the
. . , B-N2! 4 B-N3!! B-B3 5 B-B2 B-K2 6
white king. B-K3, etc.
Which square co-ordinates to Also possible is B-Bl B-Qj 2 B-Q2
1 !

White’s QN2? Obviously, KB3. Black’s B-B3! 3 B-Kl! B-N2! 4 B-N3!!, etc.
Were the black bishop on Q3, White Incidentally, if in No. 282 we add a
could win immediately with 1 B-Bl white and black pawn to KR3 and
B-K2 2 B-K3, and so forth. Only KR5 respectively, the white bishop
Black’s Qj co-ordinates with White’s would have no access to KN3, which
QBl; his KB3
Which with White’s Q^. means that White could not win, as
square corresponds to White’s Kl? Not Black can maintain the co-ordination.
Black’s KRl, because B-B2 forfeits 1

the QBP. Not Ql, for after B-B2 1

c Better king position
B-K2 2 B-K3 White immediately cedes
the move. Not K2, since B-B3 B-B3
1 (/ The king usually participates actively
. B-Qf2 B-Q^ B^K23 B-K3,^ic.) 2
. . in the endgame by supporting passed
B-N2 B-N2 3 B-R3! B-Bl 4 B-Bl! pawns, invading enemy territory and
B-K2 5 B-K3 also transfers the move. seizing hostile pawns. Thus, as we have
Therefore, White’s Kl must co- seen on m.any occasions, a better king
ordinate with Black’s KN2. Clearly, position in the endgame is of great
QB3 corresponds to KRl KB2
then, ,
to importance.
KBl and QRl to KN2. In No. 283 Black stands by helplessly,
Now, which square co-ordinates with for his king cannot join in the queenside
White’s KN3? It must be KN2, yet this operations.
square also corresponds to Kl.
We see that White possesses two
identical squares linked by only one
move. As a result. Black cannot
maintain the co-ordination.
We have constructed a table of co-
ordinate squares.

QR3 K2

QBl Ql
QRl 1 llyin-Zhencxsky — Slrcpanoxy
KN3 / ^^2
Leningrad 1932
Kl
QB3 KRl 283: 1 K-Q2 K-Nl 2 K-K3 K-Bl
KB2 KBl (Or 2 . . .
B-Qf 3 K-B4 K-Bl 4 K-K5
K~K1 5 B- Q5!) 3 B-B6! B-B4 4 K-B4
 Endgames with many Pawns 123

B-N8 5 P-R3 K-Nl 6 K-K5 B-B7 7

B-Q5 K-Bl 8 K-Q6 K-Kl 9 K-B7
B-Q8 10 P-N4 PxP 11 BPxP B-R5 12
K-N7, and Black resigned.
In exceptional cases a poorly placed
king can be the victim of attack. Then
even a large material advantage may
prove worthless.
The following example illustrates

this point.

284: The bad location of Black’s king

negates his three pawn advantage. The I.. Kiibbcl 1920
solution goes
1B-K7 P-B4 2 B-B8 B-N3 {2 .. . . . . P-R4 4 B^K7 P-N55B^N5, etc.) 4
P-N5 3 BxP P-N6 4 B-Bl P-N7 5 B-B7! (Forcing Black to push a pawn.)
P-JV3 mate) 3 B-Q6! (Of course, not 3 4 P-R4 5 B-Q6 P-R5 6 B-K7 P-R6
. . .

BxRP B~QJ 4 B-K/ P-N5 5 B-R6 7 BxNP P-R7 8 B-Bl P-R8 = 9 Q

B~B36B-B1 BxP, drsiw) 3. . .B-R2(5 P-N3 mate.
Part III: Bishops of Opposite Colours

14 BISHOP AND PAWN V. BISHOP

In endgames with bishops of opposite 1) If one or the other king impedes the
colours, a bishop cannot escort his struggle between bishop and pawn;
pawn across a square attacked by the 2) If the pawn passes beyond an
enemy bishop; therefore, as in ‘Bishop exposed square before the enemy
V. Pawn’ endings, a lone bishop can bishop can attack that square.
restrain a pawn from a distance. Generally, the defender can draw.
The side with the pawn wins only in 285 : In the analysis Berger correctly
the following two exceptional cases: predicted a draw in this position;
however. Fine, through a misunder-
standing, cited it as a rare winning
situation.
At first sight Black’s position after 1

P-R6 appears critical, e.g. 1 . . . B-B4 2

K-B3 K-Q4 3 P-R7 B-K5+ 4 K-K3,
and White wins.
However, instead of 2 ... K-Q4?,
Black draws with 2 B-Q6! 3 P-R7 . . .

R-B5 4 P-R8 = QB-Q4+. White has

an alternate plan in 2 K-K3 B-R6 3
K-B3, but Black follows through with 3
. B-B8 4 P-R7 B-B5 and 5
. . . . .

J. Berger 1922 B-Q4+.

 .

15 BISHOP AND TWO PAWNS V. BISHOP

In all other endgames two pawns generally constitute a winning advantage, but
not in bishop of opposite colour endgames.

1 DOUBLED PAWNS
The simplest way to draw against winning the bishop for one pawn and
doubled pawns is to blockade them queening the other. Therefore, Black
with the king from a square that cannot cannot afford passive tactics, e.g.,

be attacked by the enemy bishop. 1 . . . B-B4 2 P-B7! B-R6 3 P-B6

B-N5 4 K-B5 B-R6 5 K-N6 B-Bl 6
K-R7 B-moves 7 K-N8 and 8
P-B8 — Q etc. Precisely because of this,
Berger (1899) as well as Fine (1941)
indicated that White to move wins.
Rabinovich, however, pointed out in
1937 that an active defence draws for
Black. After 3 P-B6, Black plays 3 . . .

B-Bl (Also playableK-B2, is J . . .

transposing moves.) 4 K-B5 K-B2! 5

K-N6 K-K3! 6 K-R7 K-Q4! 7 K-N8
B-R3. Draw.
Note that after 2 P-B7 B-N5 3 K-B6,
J. Berger 1899
only 3 B-B6-f draws for Black. Bad
. . . !

is 3 . B-Bl 4 K-N6 K-Q^ 5 B-B4

. .

286: Black leads off with 1 . . . K-Ql K-K3 6 K-R7 K-Q4 (Black runs into
and 2 . . . K-Bl ,
forcing a draw, as the zugzwang with 6 .. K-Q2 7 K-N8 .

black king cannot be evicted from QBl B-R3 8 B^Q6) 1 K-N8 B-moves 8
White to move plays 1 B-N5, B-Q6, etc.
preventing the black king from Nor does 2 K-B7 win for White, as
reaching QBl. Now White threatens to Black draws with 2 B-K5! 3 K-N7 . . .

march his own king to QN7 or QN8, B-B6 4 K-N6 B-K5 5 P-B7 K-Q^.
126 Bishops of Opposite Colours

2 CONNECTED PAWNS
Tarrasch conducted a systematic
analysis of these endings; we present
examples of his results.

In advancing connected pawns, all

attempts at blockade must be thwarted.

The famous French chess player,
Philidor, even established the following
maxim;
‘If my bishop controls the white
squares, I must place my pawns on
black squares; then the bishop will be
able to dislodge the enemy pieces which S. Tarrasch 1921
try to maintain themselves between the
pawns.’ organizing a bishop attack against the
In conformity with this rule in the KBP, making it impossible for the white
upcoming examples, the first pawn to king to reach Q7 through Q5 and QB6.
push travels into a square the colour of However, this counteraction misfires,
theenemy bishop. Pushing the other as after B-N5+ K-Bl 2 K-Q5 B-B6,
1

pawn first permits a blockade, and, but White plays 3 P-K7+ and 4 P-K8 = Q^.
for rare situations, removes all winning Not only must the black bishop
chances. attack the KBP, but it must also control
The more advanced the pawns, the K2, which it can do only from Q,l.
more dangerous they are. Regard the following position.

a Pawns on tl^e sixth rank

Pawns on the sixth rank prove

especially menacing. With them we
begin our analysis.
Examine No. 287.
287: According to Philidor’s maxim.
White should push the K^. But an
immediate advance fails to BxP. In . . .

order to win White must get his king to

Q7 or KB7, from where it can support
the pawn push. This operation proves
very easy. First, the white bishop checks 288: After 1 B-N5-(- K-Bl, the white
on QN5 or KR5. If Black answers 1 . . . king cannot reach Q7, but the black
K-Bl, the white king slips into Q7 by bishop’s diagonal runs too short. White
way of Q5 and QB6. If ... K-Qj, 1 continues 3 K-B5, forcing Black’s
then KB5 and KN6 provide entrance to demise through zugzwang.
KB7. Black destroys this plan only by Nevertheless, pawns on the sixth
 : .

Bishop and Two Pawns v. Bishop 127

rank do not always win. Transfer No. b One pawn on the sixth rank, the
287 two files to the right. other on the fifth

C. Salvioli 1887 S. Tarrasch 1921

289: After 1 B-Q5+ K-Bl ,

the white
king cannot bypass to KB7, so Black 291: White commences with 1 K-K5
draws. and 2 P-B6, winning easily. Black to
Notice that the black bishop could move can complicate White’s task by
function as effectively from KBl . After 1 finding 1 K-Q3, forcing White to
. . .

B-Q5+ K-Rl 2 K-R5, zugzwangdoes bypass on the right: 2 K-N5 B-K7 3

not arise, as 2 ... BxP! delivers B-N3-t- K-Q4 (To 5. A"- A]? follows^ . .

stalemate. K-B4 K-Q^ 5 K-K8T, etc.) 4 P-K7

Were White in possession of a black (Utilizing the absence of black’s king
squared bishop, i.e., if he could control and the fact that the pawns cannot be
KR8, he would win. stopped. White queens.) 4 . . . B-N4 5
K-N6 B-K1+ 6 K-N7 K-B3 7 P-B6
K-Q2 8 P-B7 KxP 9 P-B8 =Q.+ and ,

wins.
Were the white king on Q4, Black to
move would play 1 . . . K-B3 2 K-K4
B-B7H-, and draw.
etc.,

Transfer No. 291 two files to the

right.

292: move has K-N5 and

White to 1

2 P-R6+ to win. But when Black moves

first, beginning with 1 ... K-B3!,
White discovers that no analogous
square to KN5 in No. 291 exists on the
290 H ere the KR P cannot be stopped board, and, therefore, he cannot
On 1.K-Nl comes2P-R7+ K-N2 3
. . bypass. So he proceeds 2 B-Q4H- K-B4
P“Q4-|- and to ... B-Nl White 1 3 P-N7 B-B5, which allows a blockade
responds 2 B-B5-|- and 3 P-R7. of the pawns and a draw.
128 Bishops of Opposite Colours

black king away with the bishop, and

then escorts the pawns to promotion
with the king.
Look at the next position.

S. Tarrasch 1921

However, were the white king on

KN4, White would win after 1 . . .

K-B3 2 B-Q4+ K-KS 3 K-NS.

Examine No. 293. M. Henneberger 1916

294: With the bishop on QBl or Q2,

rather than QN6, Black draws.
White plays B-N5+! 1

(The move 1 B--N4+ achieves

nothing, as after 7 K-B21 2 K-Q4 . . .

B-B7! 3 P-K&C K-B3, Black forces a

draw. Therefore, White places his

bishop in such a way as to prevent the

black king from reaching KB3 after the

continuation P-K6.) 1 . . . K-Q,2 (On 7

. . . K-B2 White initiates a decisive

Y. Averbakh 1954
K-Q4 B-R7 3
queenside king attack: 2
K-B5! B-N6 - 3 B-N8 4 P-K6+ . . .

293: White cannot win, e.g., 1 K-R5 and 5 P-B6 -4 K-Q6 5 P~K6 and 6
K-Nl! (A loss follows / B-Q5? 2 . . . P-^B6.) 2 K-B4 B-R7 3 B-R4 B-B2 4
B-Q5! B^B6 3 P-N6+ K-Rl 4 K-JV4!, K-N5 K-K2 5 K-R6+ K-Q2 6 K-N7
as White gets his king to KB7.) 2 B-Q4 7 K-B6, etc.
B-Q 54 K-Bl! 3 K-N6 B-K6!, draw. Black can interfere with White’s idea
With Black to move, the simplest by attacking the KBP
and preventing
draw goes 1 B-K6 and 2
. . BxP.
. . . . the move P-K6. For this manoeuvre
the bishop must stand on QjBl (or Q2).
It is easy to see that after 1 B-N5-(-
c Pawns on the fifth rank
K-B 2 White does not win, for his king,
!

White utilizes the same winning idea tied down to the KBP, can no longer
with pawns on the fifth rank as with accomplish the necessary bypass on the
pawns on the sixth rank: he drives the left. With pawns on the sixth rank, this
 Bishop and Two Pawns v. Bishop 129

mode of defence fails, for the . B~N2 3 B-B4-{- followed by 4 K-N6,

. .

inadequate bishop diagonal imposes and 2 B-B63K- R6! B-N2+ 4 K-R7

. . .

zugzwang on Black. succeeded by 5 B-B43- or 5 B-R5^

Thus, an important rule governing lose.) 3 B-N5 B^B6 4 B-K8 B-N7 5

the defensive construction of a position B-N6 B-Q5 6 K-N4! (Obliging the

arises. black king to step into KN2, White,
In the struggle against two connected after 7 B-R5, intends march to his king
passed pawns, the location of the bishop through KB3-K4— Q5-K6.) Passive
must enable it to attack one pawn and, in play disappoints Black, for the situation
conjunction with the king, prevent the advance calls for radical measures. Right now,
of the other pawn. This method leads to a the move P-B6 helps strengthen the
draw if Black does not fall into position of the black bishop, since it

zugzwang. operates best along the Q1-KB3

Transfer No. 294 one file to the right diagonal, i.e., on K2 or Qj. So, Black
and observe how this affects the would respond 6 . . . B-N3!! (or 6 .. .

outcome. B-B4!!) 1 B-R5 B-Ql!, drawing (as

shown by Berger).
Against a BP and NP, difficulties

arise only if the defending bishop

controls the near corner square.
Otherwise, the win comes easily.

M. Henneberger 1916

In No. 294 White must have access to

the KR-file (5 K-R6) in order to win;
therefore, we may conclude that White
S. Tarrasch 1921
cannot win inNo. 295, because he lacks
sufficient manoeuvring space on the move plays 1 B-Q4-t-
296: White to

right, e.g., K-R2 [1 ... K-B2 or 1 ... K-Nl 2

295: 1 B-R5+ K-K2! (On 7 . . . P-N6) 2 K-K5, etc.
K-N2 comes 2 K-K4, bypassing on the With Black to move. White answers 1

Q.-side.) 2 B-N6 B-N7 3 K-N4 B-B6 4 . . . B-R4 by 2 B-Q4+ K-B2 3 B-B3,

K-R5 B-N2! 5 B-R7 K-B2. Black’s introducing his opponent to zugzwang.
active defence prevents the white king Moreover, Black loses even if his bishop
from infiltrating on the K-side. occupies most active post on KR2: 1
its

White tries a different attack: 1 B-Q4+ K-B2 2 B-B3, once again,

K-N4 B-N7 2 K-R5 K-N2! (Both 2 zugzwang.
130 Bishops of Opposite Colours

We draw the conclusion that a BP IfWhite now tries to attack the black
and NP on the fifth rank win, regardless bishop by 3 K-Q4 B- B2 4 K-K5 B-N3
of the defensive set-up, if the defending 5 B-R3 B-R2, his idea falls flat.

bishop does not control the nearest

corner square.
In RP positions, well placed black
pieces can keep White from winning.

298: But Black also has 4 . . . K-Kl 5

K-B6 B-Ni!(5. .B^R4?6P-K5B^B6 .

7 P-Q6 B-N5 8 P-K6) 6 K-N? B-B2 7

S. Tarrasch 1921 B-R3 B-R4 8 P-K5 B-B6 9 P-Q6
B-N5 10 K-B6 K-Q2, blockading the
297: Thus, Black clearly draws: 1 pawns.
B-Q4-|- K-B2, and White can do Not even an and bishop
active king
nothing constructive. Black can even can save position No. 298, moved one
play his king to KR2, for after 2 K-N 3 a file to the right.
draw follows 2 . B-K? 3 P—N6+
. .

K-R3, etc.

d One pawn on the fifth rank, the

other on the fourth

Since we are considering only those

positionswhere Black’s bishop cannot
blockade the pawns, naturally Black
cannot prevent the advancement of the
second pawn to the fifth rank.
Consequently, the outcome depends
upon whether or not the defender can S. Tarrasch 1921
obtain a drawn position with pawns on
the fifth rank. 299: After 1 ...B-Bl 2 B-B4+
Thus, in No. 298 Black plays 1 . . . K-K2 follows 3 K-K 4 (Not 3 P-B5
!

B-Kl! 2 B-N4+ K-Q^! 3 P-K5 B-B2!, B-N2, draw) 3 . . . B-N2 4 K-B5 B- R3

situating the bishop on its optimal 5 K-N 4 ! (Now Black stands in
square. zugzwang.) 5 . . . B-Bl 6 K-N5 B-N2 7
 .

Bishop and Two Pawns v. Bishop 131

K-N6 K-Bl (7 . . . B^Bl 8 P-B5 or 7 with pawns on the fourth rank.

. . . B-Rl 8 K-R7!) 8 K-R7 and wins. Against central pawns, the weaker
The black bishop lacked sufficient side draws in two cases only:
space. 1 ) When a defensive position can be set

In No. 298 the move 7 . . . B-R4 was up with the pawns on the fourth rank;
possible, whereas No. 299 had no such 2) When a defensive position can be set

corresponding square. up with the pawns on the fifth rank.

In BP and NP situations an actively Examine No. 301
placed defensive bishop not in control
of the near corner square may even
prove useless, as we already witnessed
in No. 296.
Yet, well placed defensive pieces
draw against side pawns on the fourth
and fifth rank, as they do against both
pawns on the fifth rank.

Y. Averbakh 1954
(Drawn no matter where the black
bishop stands, other than KN7 or KN8)

301: To construct the first defensive

position. Black must prevent P-Q5 by
C. Salvioli 1887 shifting his bishop immediately to QB3.
300: White wins if he gets in K-KR7, To construct the second defensive
isolating the black king from the corner, position, the black bishop must reach
followed by the advance of the NP. KB2 by the time both white pawns
Correct defence, however, foils this settle on the fifth rank.
plan. Simple analysis shows that Black to

1 B-B4 B-Q5 2 P-N5 B-K6! (The move secures a draw, so long as his
only move; if 2 . . . B-JV7, then 3 K-R7, bishop avoids KN7 or KR8, from
4 P-M,5 P-R6 and 6 P-N7.) 3 P-R6 which the necessary defensive positions
(Black threatened BxP.) 3 . . . . . . cannot be obtained.
B-Q7 4 K-R5 B-K6 5 P-N6 B-Q5!, Let us consider one of the most
achieving position No. 289. difficult when positions, the black
bishop occupies KB8.
1 . . . R-B5!
e Pawns on the fourth rank
With B-N4? 2 B-N44-! (2
1 ...
Even greater drawing chances prevail B-N3+? K-K2! 3 P-Q5 B^Kl 4 P-K5
132 Bishops of Opposite Colours

B-B2 5 K-Q4 K-Qf, draw) Black

cannot secure the necessary position,
e.g., 2 . . . K-B2 3 P-Q5 B-Kl 4 P-K5
B-B2 5 K-K3 3
P-K6, etc., or 2 . . .

P_Q5+ K-K4 4 B-B3+ K-Q3 5

K-Q4 B-Kl 6 P-K5+ and 7 P-K6.
2 B-N3+! K-B3!
The only move; if2 . . . K.-Q2?, then
White continues 3 P-Q5, 4 K-Q4 and 5
P-K5. On
K-K3, decisive is 3 2 . . .

K-Q2 B-N6 4 K-B3 B-R7 5 B-R2,

and the black pieces interfere with one Y. Averbakh 1954
another. This circumstance explains (Drawn only if Black’s bishop
why . . . K-B3 works best - it keeps the occupies an ‘x’ marked square)
king out of the bishop’s way. Notice
that 2 B-N4+ for White, rather than 2
B-N3, yields a draw after 2 . . . K-K3 3 posted or if the stronger side is on move,
K-Q2 B-N6 4 K-B2 B-R7 5 B-R3 the defender loses.
B-N8! 6 P-Q5+ K-K4. With the black bishop on Q7, for

3 K-B4 R-Nl instance, White wins after 1 . . . B-B6 2

K-K5 K-Q2 B-R3+ K-Q3 3 K-N4 B-N2 4 K-B5

4
K- K2 5 P-K5, securing position No.
5 P-Q5 B-R2!
299.
Simpler than 5 . . . B-B2 6 K-B6 The defending bishop does not
2)
K-Kl! 7 B-B4 B-Nl! control the nearest corner square, and a
6 K-B4 B-N3 draw results if the weaker side can
7 P-K5 B-B2!, etc. obtain the basic defensive position on
If the black bishop stood on KN7, the fourth or fifth rank.
White could answer 1 . . . B-B8 or 1 . . .

B-R6 with 2 B^N4+ K-Q2 3 P-Qp,

leaving Black no time to redeploy his
pieces.
Two basic situations occur with
centre pawn and BP.
1) The defending bishop controls the
near corner square, and a draw results
if the weaker side can bring about
the necessary defensive position at
once.
302: Black draws if he can play his

bishop to the QN1-Q3 diagonal in one

move. These squares are marked with
an ‘x’ in the diagram.
If the bishop finds itself unfavourably Y. Averbakh 1954
 Bishop and Two Pawns v. Bishop 133

303: White wins only with the black Only with the black bishop on KR7
bishop on KR8. does White win with the move: P-N5 1

An No. 303 shows that

analysis of R-N8 2 K-N4 B-Q5 3 P-B5+ K-N2 4
Black draws with his bishop on any K-B4 B-N7 5 B-R5! (Stronger than 5
KR8.
square, other than B-Q^; compare with the previous
B-B7! [1 ... B-R7 2 B^R4^
1 . . . variation.) 5 . . . B-B8+ 6 K-N4 B-N7
K-K33P-B5+ K-K4 4B-N3T K-B35 7 K-B3, winning.
K-B4, etc.) 2 B-R4+ K-B2! 3 P-B5
B-R5! and 4 . . . B-Q2!, draw.
With BP and NP drawing involves
more than just controlling the nearest
corner square with the bishop and
setting up the first defensive position,
for the weaker side falls into zugzwang.

White answers (black bishop on KR3) 1

. . . K-B3 with 2 B- 03, forcing Black to
disrupt his formation. Nonetheless,
Black can regroup into the second
defensive position after 2 . . . B-Bl 3
P-N5+ K-N2 4 P-B5 B-K2, etc.
Y. Averbakh 1954
Examine a position with the black
bishop on KR7. (Draw regardless of the location of

B-N8 the black bishop)

304: Black equalizes with 1 . . .

2 B-03+ K-N2 draw (Simplest, but a

also follows 2. K-B33P-N5+ K-N2! . .

4 K-N4 B^K6 5 P-B5 B-Q5 6 K-B3 If the bishop does not control the

ETX77 K-K4B^B8!8P-B6t K-JV3.) 3 near corner square, the defender draws

P-N5 B-B4 4 P-B5 B-K2, etc. only if he has the move and can relocate
Usually, when the bishop controls his bishop at once to its optimal square.
the closest corner square, the defender Against best defence, flank pawns do
always has time to construct a defensive not win. Earlier we examined how to
position. construct this defensive position.

3 ISOLATED PAWNS
With separated pawns, the distance He cannot do so in No. 306.
between them counts significantly in
determining the outcome of the
endgame.
305: One file separates the two
pawns; White cannot win, e.g. 1 K-Kfi
B-N5 2 B-K4 K-Ql 3 K-B7 R-R6 4
P-K6 B-N5, etc. From Qj the king
simultaneously stops both pawns.
C. Salvioli 1887
134 Bishops of Opposite Colours

C. Salvioli 1887

306: After B-B3 K-Qj 2 K-K6

1

B-N5 3 P-B6 B-R4 4 P-B7 B-N5 5

K-B6 B-B6+ 6 K-N6 B-N5 7 K-N7, Y. Averbakh 1950
White wins.
On the basis of these two positions, forward. If the white king goes to QN7,
some theoreticians maintained that two the black king moves to Ql
isolated pawns separated by more maintaining the balance.
than two files always win. However, it Therefore, if Black can post his

will be shown that this distance is no bishop where it simultaneously

longer necessarily adequate. restrains both pawns, while the king
Examine the following two positions, successfully holds off the enemy king,
which differ only in the reversal of the then the game ends in a draw.
black king and bishop.

A. Cheron 1957

307: White wins: 1 P-B4 B-R5 2 309: Here the white king is much
K-Q5 B-Ql 3 K-K6 B-R5 4 P-B5, etc. more active. Nevertheless, Black can
The result changes when the black hold the balance, e.g.:

figures swap places. 1 K-B5 K-Q5 2 K-K6 (not 2 P-B4

308: White no longer can win, K-K6) 2 K-B4 3 K-Q.7
. 3 B~K8,
. .

because the black bishop has support then 3 B~B2!) 3

. . K-N3 4 B-K8
. . . .

from the king in stopping the advance B-B2! 5 K-B8 B-Q3 6 K-Q7 B-B2.
of both white pawns and in preventing Draw.
the white king from escorting the pawns If it is Black to move, only 1 . . .
 Bishop and Two Pawns v. Bishop 135

B-B2! leads to a draw (not 1 . . . B-R7 2 Drawn where the

positions exist

K-B5! K-Q53P-B4 K~K64 P-B7),t.g. defender’s bishop controls only one

2K-B5 K-Q5! 3 K-K6 K-B4 4 K-Q7 pawn, but in such cases the offensive
K-N3 5 B-K8 B-Nl! 6 K-K6 K-B4 7 king cannot break through to assist the
K-B5 K-Q5 8 K-N4 K-K6 9 B-R5 pawns’ advance.
B-B2! (again the only move). Draw. 311: Here White proceeded 1K-K2
P-N6 K-Ql K-N5
2 3 B-R7 K-R6 4
B-Ne* K-N7 (If 4 . . . P-K7, then 5
B-JVlI, which prevents the king from
approaching the queening square and
abetting the pawns’ advance.) 5 B-B7!
K-R7 6 B-K6 K-R6 7 B-B5! Draw.

Y. Averbakh, Shakhmaty v SSSR 1957

310: White to move wins after 1

K-N6! K-Q2 2 K-R7 B-Q4 3 K-N8

by the simple advance of his RP.
However, Black to move plays 1 . . .

K-Q2, and now 2 K-N6 no longer Bhend-Leepin, Lucerne 1954

works, since White’s king can be kept (Averbakh 1972)
out of P-Q5 K-K2 3
QN8. After 2
B-N8 K-Q,2 4 K-Q4 K-Bl 5 B-Q6 312: 1 B-N5 (if 1 B-B3, then 7 . . .

K-Ql 6 K-K5 K-Q2! 7 B-N8 K-Bl 8

! ! K-N3!) B-N5 2 B-B6 K-N3 3
1 . . .

B-R7 K-Q2 9 B-N6 K-Bl 10 B-R7 B-N5 K-B2! 4 B-B6 K-N3 5 B-N7
K-Q2 Black succeeds in holding the K-B2
draw.

Berger-Kotlerman, Arkhangelsk 1948 Y. Averbakh 1950

136 Bishops of Opposite Colours

313: The pawns stand three (!) files possible, but he is unable to save the
apart, yet a draw results, due to the game By giving the opponent the
inept position of the white king. move. White puts him in zugzwang.) 7
Even with the pawns as many as 5 B-B8 K-N3 8 B-K7 K-B3 9 B-B5!
files apart, there may be some technical (The goal is achieved! On 9 .. . K-N4
problems to solve. there follows K-B7, while if the
10
bishop moves then White plays 10
K-B8, and his king reaches KN7.) 1-0.
We can now formulate a rule for

opposite coloured bishop endgames

where one side possesses two extra
isolated pawns.
1) With only one file separating the
pawns, the game ends in a draw;
2) When two or more files separate the
two pawns, the stronger side wins if the
king penetrates and aids the queening
of one pawn.
Shishov-Doroshkevich Rook pawns continue posing
[Shakhmaty v SSSR 1973) exceptions to the rule. When the
defending bishop controls a RP’s
P-R5 B-N4+ 2 K-R7
314 : 1 K7 3 promotion square, the game ends in a

P-R6 B-Q6 (Both pawns are stopped, draw, so long as the defending king also
and at first sight it is not clear how reaches this square, as already
White is to get his king to KN7.) 4 demonstrated by Berger, since the
B-Q8 K-N4 5 R-K7 K-B3 6 K-N8 weaker side can then sacrifice his bishop
B- B4 (Black has done everything for the other pawn.
16 BISHOP AND THREE PAWNS V. BISHOP

With bishops of opposite colours, three After the text move, a bypass on the K-
extra pawns still do not guarantee a side becomes senseless. To advance the
win. pawns the black king should invade on
Tripled pawns win if the enemy king the Q-side.) 1 . . . K-B5 2 B-Q4 B-R 6 3
cannot sustain a blockade in front of R-B5 K-K4 4 K-K3 B-B8 (After 4...
them. An examination of No. 286 P-B7, White draws with 5 B-Q^!) 5
clarifies this program. B-R7 K-Q3 6 K-Q2 K-B 3 7 K-B3
Three connected pawns, un- K-N4 8 K-N 3 (Guarding against a
blockaded, easily win, so long as a black king invasion.) 8 . . . B-B54- 9
blockade cannot subsequently be K-B3 K-R3, then 9
(If 9 . . . B-R7! 10
imposed. Winning becomes much more KxB K-B5 11 K-N2 P-Qp, etc.) 9 . . .

complicated some cases

and, in K-R5 10 B-B5 B-R3 11 B-Nl K-R 6 !

impossible, when the defender manages (Step by step, the king encroaches on
a blockade. enemy K-Q4 B-B5 13
territory.) 12
Observe No. 315. K-B3 K-R7 14 B-Q4 K-N 8 15 K-Q2
B-N4 16 K-Ql B-B3 17 K-Q2 B-R5
(At which time White stands in
zugzwang and must let the black king
penetrate the back ranks even further.)
18 K-B3 (Or 18 B^B2 K-JV7, and the
black king reaches QB5 to support the
advance . . . P-Q5.) 18 . . . K-B 8 19
B-Nl K-Q8 20 K-Q4 K-K7 21 KxP
P-K 6 22 K-Q4 P-B7, and wins.
Note that Black had to use the R-file

for manoeuvring. We will transfer No.

315 one file to the left and see whether
A. Cheron 1952 or not Black can carry out his winning
plan.
315 : 1 K-B 2 ! (Forced. If 1 B-B2, then 316: Now can the black king
Black plays 7 . . . B^N4! 2 B^K3 K-M! penetrate on the Q-side?
3 B-B2+ K~N7 4 B-K3 P-B7+ 1 5 BxP 1 K-K 2 K-K5 2 B-B4 B-N 6 3 B-N5
!

K-B6 6 B-B5 P-K6, 7 K-K5, 8 .. . . . .

K-^4 4 K-Q3 B-K 8 5 B-R 6 K -B3 6
P-Q5 and 9 .. P-Q6, winning easily.
.
K-B 2 K-N3 7 B-B4 K-R4 8 K-N3!,
138 Bishops of Opposite Colours

ff-B3+ K-Q4 rB-N4 B-Kl! (The

bishop must relocate to the KR2-KB4
diagonal.) 7B-Q2 B-N3 8 B-N4 B-R2
9 B-Kl K-B4 10 B-Q2 B-N3! (If Black
plays 10 .. K-N4 immediately, then 11
.

K~Q4 removes all his hopes.) 11 B-Kl

K-N4 1 2 K-Q4 K-R5!! 1 3 KxP P-K6,
and Black wins.
However, moving No. 317 one file to
the left upsets Black’s winning plan.

A. Cheron 1952

sealing off the black king. Black does

not have enough space to win.
Similarly, a draw results when we
move No. 316 one or two files to the left.

Y. Averbakh 1954

318: The black king has no access to

White’s Q-side.
Similarly, a drawn endgame results
from No. 318 moved one file to the left.
Finally, we mention one other type of
drawn position.
Y. Averbakh 1954

317: Consider this diagram where

White’s pieces blockade Black’s pawns.
Obviously, the result depends upon
whether or not the black king can break
through to support the advance of his

pawns, thus lifting the blockade.

1 . . . K-B4! 2 K-K3! (The bishop
cannot be touched, for 2 loses to 2
. . . P-B6 3 BxP P-K6.) 2 . . . B-N2!
(Further bypass makes no sense, as the
king can only go so far as KBS.) 3 B-B3! Y. Averbakh 1954
B-B3! 4 B-42 (If 4 B-N2, then 4 .. .

K~K3 and 5 . . . K-Q4.) 4 . . . K-K4! 5 319: Here a bypassing manoeuvre

 Bishop and Three Pawns v. Bishop 139

also fails: 1 .K-N5

. . 2 K-B2 or 1 . . . . P-B6 White responds 2 BxP!
. .

K-Q3 2 B-B2 K-K3 3 B-Ql K-B4 4 Separated pawns win fairly easily.
B-B2 K-B5 5 K-K2, etc. Only when a blockade functions and
The main characteristic running the stronger side’s king cannot near his
throughout these drawn positions is the pawns does victory vanish.
king’s inability to penetrate enemy In the following study Chekhover
and support the advance of his
territory depicts such an exception to the rule.
pawns. The power of a blockade has
been clearly demonstrated in its •

capacity to neutralize a great material

advantage.
With a RP whose bishop is of the
wrong colour, additional drawing
possibilities arise.

V. Chekhover 1950

The solution: B-K8! K-B3 2

321: 1

K-K2 B-B8 3 K-Ql B-N7 4 K-K2

B-Q5 5 K-Ql K-Q3 6 B-B7! P-N7 7
B-N6 K-B4 8 K-K2 P-Q4 9 B-B5
K-N5 10 B-N6 K-R6 11 B-Nl! K-N6
12 K-Ql K-B6 13 K-K2 B-B4 14
K-Ql P-Q5 15 K-K2 K-Ne 16 K-Q.3,
320: Black cannot win, because to 1 draw.
17 ENDGAMES WITH PAWNS ON BOTH
SIDES

In bishops of opposite colours passed pawn.) 5 . . . P-N3 6 K-B3

endgames, an extra pawn, sometimes K-B3 P-QR4 K-N3 8 B-B8 P-KR4
7

even two, will not ensure a win. For 9 P-QN4 B-Q4 10 P-N3 B-K3 (White
example, observe position No. 322. has no chance for a passed pawn, but
perhaps he can dispatch his king
immediately to the K-side?) 11 K-Q4
B-N6! (Usefully halting the opposing
pawns.) 12 P-R5H- K-N4 13 K-K5
B-K3 14 K-B6 K-B3 (White diverts
the black king to the queen flank. The
black bishop, however, does not need
the king’s help in coping with the K-
side pawns, for the white bishop cannot
attack a singleenemy pawn.) 15 K-N5
K-N4 16 P-R4 K- B3 17 P-B3 B-Q4!
(Black remains alert. If 77 K-N4, . . .

Y. Averbakh 1954 then 18 P-N4! Px P 19 Px P, and White

creates a dangerous passed pawn for a
322: This position simulates a typical won endgame.) 18 K-B4 K-N4 19
situation with bishops same
of the p_N4 K-B3 20 PxP PxP 21 K-N3
colour (No. 243). In No. 243 White K--N4, White can do nothing.
etc.

wins easily, yet here Black secures an This example clearly demonstrates
elementary draw. the particulars of endings with opposite
Let us see: 1 K-Bl (White strength- coloured bishops.
ens his king position, preparing for the First, the offensive bishop cannot
creation of a passed pawn on the Q_- support advance of the passed
the
side.) 1 . . . K-Bl 2 K-K2 K-Kl 3 pawn, because it cannot dispute those
K-Q3 B-K3 (The first annoyance. The squares controlled by the enemy
white king no longer has access to bishop.
QB4.) 4 P-QN3 P-QR4, then 4
(If 4 . . . Second, the offensive bishop cannot
B-JV6 5 P-R5 B-R5, and the extra pawn attack any enemy pawns located on
means nothing.) 4 K-Q2 5 B-N4 . . . squares of the opposite colour.
(The second inconvenience. The white Therefore, if the defending king can
bishop cannot assist in the creation of a occupy a square in front of the pawns.
 .

Endgames with Pawns on Both Sides 141

not controlled by the enemy bishop, with an easy win. But by playing 5
and the defending bishop can protect B-B5! instead of 5 B-K2?, White can
his pawns on both flanks, then the meet Black’s threat: 5 . . . P-R3 6 PxP
stronger side has no winning chances KxP 7 B-Q7 and 8 B-N5, with an
unless he creates another passed pawn. unbreachable position.
No. 323 is typical. If Black moves his king rot to . . .

QR4, but to ... QN2, then the

threatened . . . P-R4 can be met by
placing White’s bishop on QjR4. There
is one remaining possibility: to transfer

the bishop to . . .
QNl.
1 . . B-B3
2 B-N4 B-Ql
3 B-K2 B-B2
4 B-N4 B-Nl
5 B-R5!
5 B— Ql! is also good, but 5 B-Q7?
fails to 5 . . . K-Q6, and 5 B-K2? to 5
Y. Averbakh 1954 . P-R4 6
. . PxPe.p. B-R2 7 B-N4
P-N4 8 PxP P-B5 etc.

323: Black’s passive strategy rewards 5 . . . P-R4

him with a draw. The white king’s 6 PxPe.p. P-N4
greater mobility plays no role here. 6 . . . B^R2 7 B-K8!
7 PxP B-R2
8 P-N6!!
A typical pawn sacrifice, the idea of
which is to avoid the zugzwang after 8
B-K2? B-N3!, when White has to play
9 B-B4, which gives Black a decisive
tempo: 9 B-R2 (or 10 . . . K-Q5 10
B-K2 P-B5 11 KxP P-B6 12 K-Kl
K-K6 13 B-QJ K-Q6 14 B-K2+ K-B7
and 15 .. . K-N7) 10 . . . P-B5 11 KxP
K-Q6+! 12 K-B3 P-B6 B-N3 P-B7 13
14 BxP+ KxB 15 K-K4 K-B6 16
M. Dvoretsky Shakhmatny Bulletin 1972
K-B5 K-B5 7 K-K6 K-B4, and wins. 1

8 BxP . . .

324: Here Black must strive to obtain 9 B-K2 K-Q7 10 B-N5 B-R2 B-K2 1 1

a second passed pawn by . . . P-R4. K-B7 12 KxP! {12B^N5K-M) 12 . . .

How should he prepare this advance? P-B5+ 13 K-B3 P-B6 14 K-K4 K-Q7
1 . . . K-Ql B-K2
2 B-N4 K-B6 3 15 B-Q3 B-B4 16 B-Nl P-B7 17 BxP
K-N5 4 B-Q3 K-R4 5 B-K2? P-R3 6 KxB 18 K B5 K-Q6 19 K-K6 K-B5
PxP KxP 7 B-Q.3 K-R4 8 B-K2 20 P-R7 (a typical diverting sacrifice).
K-N5 9 K-N2 P-N4! 10 PxP P-B5, Thus Black is unable to win.
142 Bishops of Opposite Colours

At first sight, position No. 325 seems 7 K-N5 K-B2

a typical drawn situation. The black 8 P-KR4 R-Bl
king guards the queen flank, where 9 K-R6 K-Nl
White threatens to create a passed 10 P-N3 BPxP
pawn, while the black kingside pawns 11 PxP K-Q2
occupy the same colour squares as their 12 B-K5!
bishop; thus, it appears that the black Black is in zugzwang. On 12 . . .

bishop can defend all the pawns B-Bl follows 13 P-R4, while on 12 . . .

simultaneously. B-Kl comes K-N5 B-Q2 14 K-B6

13
K-Bl 15 B-Q6+ K-Nl 16 K-K7 B-Bl
{16 .. . B-B3 17 K-K6) 17 P-R4, and
the white king escorts the QRP to

promotion. White wins.

How could our first impression have
been mistaken? Can Black play
stronger?
White’s basic idea involves attacking
Black’s weak pawns with his king.
Black’s only defence is to attack White’s
weak KNP and KRP: 1 , . . B-N4!! 2
K-N3 {2 P-KN4 PxP 3 PxP B-K7 4
Nimzowitsch^Tarrasch, K-N3 B-B6) 2 B-B8! After 3 . . .

Bad Kissingen 1928 P-KR4 P-R4! 4 K-B4 BxP 5 KxP, the

black bishop finds himself perfectly
325: Let us examine what happened placed to defend the kingside pawns.
during the game: White cannot win. (Curiously, almost
1 K-R2 P-QB5 all other endgame books have White

2 K-N3 K-Bl winning No. 325.)

3 K-B4 K-Q2 The basis for the first defensive
4 B-N4 K-K3 strategy centres on each piece
5 B-B3 K-Q2 functioning in a strictly defined manner:
Why does Black reject the thematic pawns and the
the bishop defends the
move, 5 ... B-N3.? After 6 K-N5 king combats the enemy passed pawn.
K-Q4 7 P-KN3 P-N4 8 P-KR4 K-B3 If the defender cannot hold off the
9 P-N3 PxP 10 BPxP K-N 3 n P-R4 invasion of the hostile king, who
PxP 12 PxP K-R3 13 P-QR5 K-N4, supports the promotion of a passed
White plays 14 P-R5! B-Kl 15 KxP pawn, then, as in other endings, the
BxP 16 KxP, and the additional stronger side wins.
passed pawn ensures victory.^ Now Let us analyse the forthcoming
Black must call upon his king to defend study.
the KRP, while trusting to his bishop 326: White wins if he can settle his
the task of preventing the creation of a king on KN7, as then one pawn wins
passed pawn on the Q,-side. the bishop and the other one queens.
6 P-KN3 P-N4 Black draws if his king reaches KN 1
 9

Endgames with Pawns on Both Sides 143

326
1 K-N 6 B-B3 2 K-N7 B-Q4 3 K-B8
K-Q2 ! (A loss surfaces when Black tries
+ 3. .B-B34B-N1K-(125K-B7B-K5
.

6 K-B6 and 7 P-RS^dBxdS KxP,

etc.) 4 B-R4 K-Bl! 5 K-K7 K-N 2 !,

and Black reaches a basic drawn

position. White cannot win.
Let us vary the position a little,

placing the QNP on QR 6 (No. 328). It

would seem that this inferior pawn
arrangement for White would allow
A. Kazantsev 1950 Black to draw regardless of who moves
first.

from where he can immobilize the Nonetheless, White wins, since Black
enemy pawns. cannot manoeuvre his king to QRl and
Consequently, the struggle in this set up a valid defence.
study pivots around a king race. Who
gets in place first?
1 B-R 8 (The!! ‘line intercept’ theme;
White clears the way for his king.) 1 . . .

K-N 2 2 K-N 2 BxP (Obviously forced,

but it means a loss of tempo; now the
white king outdistances his adversary.)
3 K-B3 B-B4 K-Q4 K-B3 5 K-K5
4
K-Q2 6 K-B6 K-Kl 7 K-N7 P-K4 8
P-R 6 P-K5 9 P-R7 P-Kfi 10 K-R 6
P-K7 11 B-B3, etc.

Y. Averbakh 1951

328: 1 K-N 6 B-B3 2 K-N 7 B-Q4 3

K-B 8 K-Q2 4 B-Nfi! B-B3 (If 4 . . .

B-Rl, then 5 K-B7 K-B3 6 B-B2 K-M

-Black tries an active defence - 7
K-K7I KxP 8 K-Q7! K-N2 9 B^K3
K-R3 10 K-B7, and White wins.) 5
K-B7 B-K5 6 K-B 6 K-Q3 7 B-K3
(Incorrect would be 7 P-R8— Q,^X d^
Kx P, as Black assures himself of a draw
Y. Averbakh 1951
by placing his king on QR 1 and giving
up the bishop for the KBP: 8 .. B-B6 .

327:White wins if his king can K-N5 K-B3 10 Br B2 K-M 11 P-R7

support the advance of the queenside K-R3! 12 P-B5 K-N2 13 P-B6 B-Q4,
pawns. Try this manoeuvre: etc.) 7 . . . K-Q ,2 8 B-B5! K-B 2 (White
144 Bishops of Opposite Colours

gradually confines the black king.) 9

K-K6 K-Ql 10 B-N6+! K-Kl
(Moving 10 .. . K-Bl costs Black his
KBP after 11 B-R5^.) White finishes
with 1 1 K-Qfi followed by 1 2 K-B7 and
13 K-N8.

Henkin-Dubinsky, Moscow 1964

{Shakhmatny Bulletin 1964)

passed pawn on the K-side, this may

decide the game. But this can be done
only by means of the break-through . . .

P-B4 and . . . P-K5 (at the appropriate

Kotov-Botvinnik, Moscow 1955
moment), which involves the sacrifice
(Averbakh 1972)
of two pawns and is therefore of a
329: In this example White seems to double-edged nature.
have met all the requirements for a Thus the subsequent play resolves
successful defence: his king is dealing itself into a struggle for a break-
with theenemy passed pawn, while his through.
bishop defends the pawns on both How should White defend? Firstly he
wings. However, this is not the case. must block the QRP, and secondly he
Black succeeds in creating a further must not allow the K-side break-
passed pawn, which decides the game through in a situation unfavourable for
in his favour. him.
.P-N4!!2BPxP(Bad h2RPxP
1 . . If the king takes on the role of
P-R53B-Q6B-B4 4 P-N6 BxP5P-B5 blockader, then after,, 1 K-N3 B-N7 2
BxP6 Kx P K-N7, and the RP will cost K-B2 K-Q5 the following position is

White his bishop.) 2 . . . P-Q5+! (It is reached.

important for Black to keep his NP.) 3 331: Black wins by approaching
PxP K-N6 4 B-R3 {4 B-K7 K)<P 5 White’s. K-side pawns with his king: 3
P-N6-\- A'-jY5 is also inadequate.) 4 . . . K-Q,2 B-B6+ 4 K-B2 {4 K-K2 B^N5
KxP K-Q3 KxP 5 6 K-K4 P-R5 7 and 5 K-B6) 4
. . .B-N5 5 K-N3 . . .

K-B3 B-Q4+ 0-1. B-K2 6 K-R2 K-K6 7 B-N4 K-B5 8

330: Henkin gives a highly detailed B-R5 (on 8 K-JV3 there follows 8 .. .

analysis of this complex ending P-B4 9 PxP P~K5) 8 . . . P-B4 9 PxP

(330-342). K xP, and Black wins by exchanging
White can successfully cope with one pawns.
passed pawn on the QR-file, but if Thus we have established that
Black manages to create a second Black’s king must not be allowed to
 Endgames with Pawns on Both Sides 145

331
black king reaches . . . KN3, then to
prevent moving to it KR4, White’s
W bishop must abandon
. .

the
.

QjR.2-KN8
diagonal. But then his king must take
over the role of blockading the passed
pawn. However, as long as the white
king is at Q3, it not only ‘polices’ Q4,
but also prevents a further attacking
resource for Black - the break-through
by*. P-B4 and
. . P-K5, with the . . .

creation of a second passed pawn on the

KN-file.
reach Q5. Therefore when the
. . .
Thus if White now plays 3 K-B2,
black king is at QB4, his opposite
. . .
then Black immediately decides
number must be at Q3, with the bishop matters by 3 . . . P-B4! 4 PxP K-B3 5
on the QR2-KN8 diagonal, blocking K-N3 (5 B-K6 P-K5 6 PxP P-N5) 5
the passed pawn. This is the plan that . . . B-JV7P6B-K6
B-B4! (but not 5 . . .

White chose in the game. P-K5 7 PxP K-K4 8 B~B4 Kx P9 P-B6

1 K-Q3 with a draw) 6 B-K6 P-K5 7 PxP
K-K4 8 B-B4 KxP, and Black’s bishop
controls his KBl square, while at
. . .

the same time defending his RP.

But with the black king at . . . KBl,
White need not fear the break-through.

333

332: Even this position has its

drawbacks for White: his bishop is tied

to the QjR.2-KN8 diagonal, and Black
can try to effect a break-through on the
K-side.
1 . . . K-Q.3 333: Here 1 . . . P-B4 leads only to a
B-N8
2 K-K2 draw: 2 PxP P-K5 (if 2 . . . K-K2, then
Here we must interrupt the course of 3 K-(13 and 4 K-K4) 3 PxP P-N5 4
the game, and once again turn to K-N3 R-B4 (4 . . . B-N7 5 B-K2 P-N6
analysis. 6 B-B3 K-K2 7 P-K5) 5 P-K5! K-N2 6
It is clear that White cannot B-K2 P-N6 7 B-Bl K-R3 8 P-K6
maintain waiting tactics for long. If the K-N4 9 B-R3 K-R5 10 B-N2, and the
146 Bishops of Opposite Colours

threat of 1 1 P-B6 forces the black king followed by the advance of the NP.
to return to . . . N4. Other continuations also lose:
It was this circumstance that White a) 1 K-Q3 K-B5 K-K2 K-N6 3
2
exploited in the game. B-Q5 P-N5 4 K-Bl K-R7 5 P-K5
3 B-B4 K-Bi BxP, and one of the black pawns
4 K-B2 K-N2 queens.
5 K-N3 B-N7 b) B-Q5 P-N5 2 K-Q3 K-B5 3
1

6 B-N5 K-K2 K-N6, and so on as in variation

The alternative defensive possibility (a).

was 6 B-K6, with the aim of answering 6 Now let us return to the game
. K-N3 with 7 B-N4. But then Black
. . continuation. After 6 B-N5 Black did
sends his king on a return journey, and not immediately find the correct plan,
reaches position 331, since White is but first made a few moves which did
unable to regroup in accordance with not affect the situation.
position 332: 7. . .K-B28K-B2K-K29 6 . . . K-B2
B-R5 K-Q3, and now the natural move 7 K-B2 B-Q5
10 B-B7, which parries the threat of . . . 8 K-N3 B-N7
K-B4— Q5, allows the familiar break- After the game, Dubinsky told me
through, though in a slightly different that hehad almost played 8 B-B4?, . . .

9
form: 10. . .P-B411 PxPP-K5 12PxP but then noticed just in time that this
K-K4. move would surprisingly lead to a draw
after 9 B-Q7!

334: Here White loses because both

his pieces are simultaneously badly 335: Indeed, the threatened break-
placed. If his king were on QN3, he through by the black king (9 . . . K-N3)
would draw by B-R5 KxP 2 P-B6, 1 is parried by 10 B-N4, while Black’s
but if he now plays K-N3, then after 1 1 bishop hinders his king from reaching
. .KxP 2 P-B6 K-K4 his own bishop
. . .
. Q5, e.g. 9 . .B-N4
. K-K2 10
is in the way. 2 B-K6 (instead of 2 P-B6) K-Q3 1 1 B-B5 B-N5 2 B-N4 K-B4 1 1

does not help, since Black does not, of B-K6 etc.

course, reply 2 . . . P-N5? 3 P-B6! with K-B2 K-N2

a draw, but 2 . . . K-K4 3 B-B8 K-B3 Here the break-through by 9 . . .
 Endgames with Pawns on Both Sides 147

P-B4 is not dangerous in view of 10 occupied the diagonal necessary for

PxP P-K5 [10 ... K-B3 11 B-Q^) 11 stopping the white pawns: 14 . . . P-B4!
PxP K-B3 12 K-N3 (cf. position 333), 15PxPP-K5 16PxP(;^^Q5PxP/7
or 11 ... B-B3 12 K-N3 B-K2 13 BxP K-N2, followed by . . .

P-K5. K-B3~K4—B5cic.) 16 P-N5 17 B-B4 . . .

10 K-N3 K-N3 K-N4 18 B-Bl K-B5 19 B-N2 K-N6 20

11 B-K8+ B-Rl {20 P-K5 K-B5) 20 K-R7 21 . . .

P-K5 KxB 22 P-B6 B-Q5! 23 P-B7

B-B4, and Black wins.
I chose a different continuation, but
was unable to avoid defeat.

12 B-B7 K-N2
There it is, the necessary tempo!
B-R5 13
After 13 B-K8 K-Bl 14 B-N5 K-K2
15 B-B4 K-Q3 16 K-B2 K-B4 17
K-Q3 White is short of just one move
by his bishop to any square on the
QR2-KN8 diagonal: 17 P-B4! 18 . . .

PxP P-N5! 19 P-B6 {19 PxP P-K5^)

19 P-K5+ 20 PxKP P-N6, and
. . .

336:
11
To be perfectly honest, I Black wins.
thought that was drawn.
this position 13 . . . K-Bl
Black’s king is ‘locked’ in his own camp, 14 B-N6 K-K2
while White is keeping a careful watch 15 K-B2 K-Q3
on the possibility of a pawn break- 16 B-B7 P-B4!
through, and if the black king heads for 17 PxP P-K5
. QB4, then White can reach position
.
. 18 PxP K-K4
.K-N212B-N5K-B213
332,e.g. 11. . The position given in diag. 334 has
K-B2 K-K3(K2) 14 B-B4+ K-Q3 15 been reached. The game concluded: 19
K-Q3 K-B4 16 B-R2, and White is in B-B4 KxP 20 B-Q3H- (hoping for 20
time. Nevertheless, the position is lost. . . . K-B6 OT 20 .. .K-B5, when 21
Black needs only to gain one tempo, draws) 20 . . . K-K6, and White
and Dubinsky finds a way to do this. resigned. After 21 B-B4 B-K4 22 K-N3
. K-R3!!
. . P“Q3, he has to give up his bishop for
A brilliant manoeuvre, which I had the NP.
overlooked in my adjournment Let us return to position 332. If
analysis. If now 12 K-B2, then Black Black’s plan is to turn the white position
makes a favourable regrouping: 12... on the K-side, can’t the white king go
B-Q5! 13 K-N3 {13 B-B7 K-N2 14 across to confront his black colleague
B-K6 K-N3 15 K-N3 B-M 16 B-N4 there?
K-B2- cf. position 331) 13 B-B4 14 . . . Thus, 1 . . . K 03 2 B-B4 K-K2 3
B-B7. But now the break-through is K-K2
possible, since Black’s bishop has 337: Here we have to consider two
148 Bishops of Opposite Colours

move, and he plays 4 K-Bl, then the

break-through 4 . . . PxP K-B3
P-B4 5
6 B-K6 P-K5 7 PxP K-K4 8 B-Q5
K-B5 9 K-N2 leads to a win.

339

/+

additional positions, which will be

useful in the subsequent analysis.
Is the break-through by 3 . . . P-B4
PxP K-B3 5
possible here? After 4
B-K6P-K5 6PxPP-N5 [6. .K-K4 7 .

K-B3) 1 K-Bl K-K4 8 K-N2! K-B5 {8 339: Black drives the white king back
. KxP9 K~N3) the following position
. . onto the first rank, and then advances
is reached. his NP.
1B-B3! 2 K-R3 B-K4! (not, of
. . .

course, 2 .. K-B6? 3 P-K5+ ) 3 K-N2

.

(White cannot afford to give up his KP:

3 B-K6 KxP 4 K~JV4 B~B3, and Black’s
king goes to the support of his RP) 3 . . .

K-K6! 4 K-Bl (now on 4 K-R3 there

follows 4 .. . K-B6, and if 5 P-B6, then 5
. P-N5+ 6 K~R4 BxP+) 4
. . . . .

K-B6! 5 P-B6 K-N6 6 P-B7 B-Q3 7

P-K5 B-B4 8 P-K6 K-R7, and the
promotion of the NP is assured.
Let us return to position 337. Black
continues his manoeuvre 3 . . . K-Bl 4
338: Black cannot drive White’s king
back onto the first rank, and therefore
the position is drawn, e.g. 1, . . B-K4 2
B-Q5 K-B2 KxP 3 P-B6
(but not 2
BxP4 K-M3 K-K4 and 5 K-B4) 2 . . .

. P-N6 3 B-R2 KxP 4 P-B6 K-B5 5

. .

P-B7 B-Q3 6 B-N3, and Black’s king is

tied to his NP, since on 6 . . . K-K6
there follows 7 P~B8=Q,BxQ,8 KxP
with a draw.
But if in position 337 it is White to
 .

Endgames with Pawns on Both Sides 149

K-Bl K-N2 5 K-N2 K-N3 6 B-K6 (6 seemed to me that Black could give
It
. . . P-B4^ was threatened). White the move just as he pleased, and
Here White is faced by two
340: therefore I did not analyse position 340
problems: he must watch for a possible any further, and abandoned this whole
break-through by ... P-B4 in a plan.
situation favourable for Black, and he But the fact is that Black cannot do
must not allow the black king to reach this! If he moves his bishop away from
. . . KR5. In the latter case Black wins . . . Q5 along the . .
.
Q5-QR8
as follows: diagonal, then White gains the square
KB2 for his king, while if the bishop
moves anywhere along the . . .

QR2-KN8 diagonal (except . .

. Q5),
then the break-through by . . . P-B4 is

not dangerous, B-B4 7 K-N3e.g. 6 . . .

K-N2 8 K-N2 K-Bl 9 K-Bl K-K2 10

B-R2! P-B4 11 PxP K-B3 12 B-Nl!
(but not 12 B-K6 P-K5 13 Px P K-K4 14
B-Q5 B-Q5! 15 K-N2 K-B5 - cf.
position 339) 12 ... P-K5 13 PxP
K-K4 14 K-N2, and Black must lose a
tempo by 14 . . . B-Q5 (on which there
K-B3 with a draw) since the
follows 15
immediate 14 ... K-B5 fails to 15
341: 1 K-R2 (the bishop cannot P-B6.
leaveK6 because of P-JV5) . . . 1 . . .
Black is similarly unable to give
B-B6 2 K-N2 B-K8 3 K-R2 {3 K-Bl White the move by 6 .K-R4 7K-N3 . .

K-N6!) 3 P-N5! 4 PxP K-N4 5

. . . K-R3 8 B-R21, and now on 8 . .

K-N2 K-B5 6 B-Q5 KxP 7 K-Bl K-N3 White does not play 9 B-K6?
B-N5 8 K-K2 K-B5 9 K-Q3 P-B4 10 K-N2! etc., but 9 K-N4! K-N2 10
PxP KxP etc. K-B5, starting a counter-attack.
worked through position 340
I

during my adjournment analysis, and

realized that if it is White to move he is
in zugzwang.

Indeed, White to move loses in all

variations. Thus 7 K-Bl fails to 7 . . .

K-R4 and 8 . . . K-R5 (cf. position

341), while 7 K-N3(R3) leads after 7

. .K-N2! 8 K-N2 {8 K-N4 K-Bl 9
.

K-B5 K-K2 10 B-R2 K-Q^ 11 KxP

K-B4 12 KxP B-K6+ and 13 .. B-B5) .

8 K-Bl 9 K-Bl K-K2 (this tempo

. . .

decides!) 10 B-R2 P-B4 to position 339,

which is won for Black. 342: On reaching this position, I had
150 Bishops of Opposite Colours

already drawn the line, and was ready

343
to declare the whole ending a draw,
when I noticed the following
W
manoeuvre.
10 . . . B^B7 11 B^B4 1 1 K-K6 fails

to 11 ... K-N3 followed by . . . P-N5

and . . . K-N4. 11 . . . B^R5! 12 B-R2 \

Black’s BP is now indirectly defended,

and his king can try to make an entry
from the other side. 12 K-Bl 13 . . .

K-K6 K-Kl 14 Qj6 If 14 B^N3, K

then 14 . . . K-Ql 15 B-R2 K-B2, Marshall Lewitt, Coburg 1904
while in the case of 14 K-Q5 K-K2
White can play neither 15 K-B5, nor 15 1 K-B3! K-B6 2 K-K4K-N7 3 K-K5
K-B4, because of the break-through by B-B3+ K-Q6 P-R7 5 BxP KxB 6
4
. P-B4 and
. . P-K5. 14 B-B7 . . . . . . K-K6 K-N6 7 K-B7 B-B6 8 K-N6
15K-K6B-Q,5! 16K-Q5 16 KxP fails B-B3 9 P-N5! PxP 10 P-R6! PxP 11
to 16 . . . K-Q2 17 KxP B-K6+ 18 KxB P-N5 12 K-N6! P-N6 13 P-B6
K-B5 B-B5, when Black’s king goes to P-N714P-B7P-N8=Q.+ 15 KxPW.
the support of his RP. 16K-Q6P-B417 By itself, the penetration of the king
PxP P-K5 is also bad. 16 . . . K-K2! to the passed pawn in bishops of
Having decoyed the white king. Black opposite endgames means
colours
once again heads for the K-side with his nothing. Of importance is whether or
king. 17 K-B4 Or 17 B-N3 K-B2. 17 not the king can support the advance of
. . . K-Bl 18 K-Q^ K-N2, and by the passed pawn. If the enemy king and
breaking through to . . . KR5, Black bishop stop the pawn, the game results
wins as in position 341. in a draw, given the absence of any
A most interesting and difficult additional positional weaknesses.
ending. It is not only of theoretical The second typical drawn position
interest, but also demonstrates once appears in diagram No. 344.
again the inexhaustibility and richness
of chess. 344
When the king succeeds in breaking
through and supporting the pawn’s
advance, victory follows in all but rare
cases.
Exceptions come out of those
positions where a draw results even
after the bishop has been sacrificed for
the passed pawn.
Examine No. 343.
343: Since White cannot keep the
Y. Averbakh 1954
black king out of QN7 and QR7, he
aims his king towards the black pawns. 344: The black king and bishop
 Endgames with Pawns on Both Sides 151

struggle in unison against the passed Does White more still win after the
pawn, while the bishop simultaneously accurate 1 K-Kl! 2 K-B7 B-K3.?
. . .

guards his own pawns. Examine a possible variation. 3 P-R3!

Following 1 K-N6 B— Q6 2 K-B6! B-B4 4 P-KN4 PxP 5 BPxP B-Q2.
Black must admit defeat, but 1 . . . Apparently, White cannot reach
B-Q2! draws. Black’s only weak point, the KNP. We
However, just one weakness in the know that the White bishop cannot
defensive set-up can alter the issue penetrate to KB8! 6 B-Q4 B-K3 7
decisively. B-R7 B-Q2 8 B-N8. At first glance.
White’s bishop manoeuvres seem
absurd. 8 . . . B-K3 9 K-N6. Suppose
Black pursues his passive tactics. 9 . . .

B-Q2 10 B-B7 K-B2 1 1 B-Q8! Could it

be that the bishop has found a path to

the KNP? 11... K-Kl 12 B-K7 K-B2
13 K-B7 K-Kl 14 B-B8!! Incredible,
but true! 14 P-N3 15 B-N7 P-B4 16
. . .

P-N5! P-B5 17 P-R4 P-B6 18 B-Q4

B-B4 19 B-B2! B-K3 20 P-R5 PxP 21
P-N6, with an easy win.
But perhaps Black has better?

Averbakh-Lyublinsky, Moscow 1950 Unfortunately, The correct yes.

continuation is 9 K-Q2! 10 KxP . . .

345: After 1 K-N6 Black confronts B-N6! 11 B— B7 B— Q8. Were his QNP
the problem of where to put his king, on on QN4, White would win easily; but
Kl or KS. With black pawns stationed this particular arrangement of the
on KB4 and KN3, both moves work, white pieces allows a draw, in spite of
because all White’s opportunities on pawn advantage,
the two e.g., 12 K-B5
the kingside disappear. B-B6 13 B-R5 B-N7! (Black must
Black selected 1 ... K-K3. The liquidate the K-side threat.) 14 P-R4
decisive mistake. Play continued: 2 B-B6 15 P-N5 PxP 16 PxP B-Q8 17
K-B7 B-Kl P-R4! (Black cannot
3 B-B3 P-N3 18 P-N4 PxPe.p. 19 B-N2.
reply 3 .. P-N3, because of 4 Bx P!) 3
. White sacrifices one passed pawn to
. B-Q2 4 P-KN4! White squelches
. . establish another. 19 B-B7 20 P-I^4 . . .

all Black’s hopes. Now the badly placed B-Q8 21 P-R5 B-K7 22 B-R3 B-B8 23
black kingside pawns give White the K-Q5 B-K7 24 K-K5 B-B8 25 K-B6
possibility to create another passed B-Q6 26 K-B7 P-N7, draw.
pawn. In the wake of 4 PxP 5 PxP . . . A draw also follows 9 B-Q2 10 . . .

B-Kl 6 P-R5, Black resigned, as on 6 B-B7 P-B4!! 11 PxP BxP 12 KxP

. . . B-Q2 White has the convincing 7 B-B7 13 K-B6 B-K5+, etc.
BxP! PxB 8 P-R6. The poorly co- It should be noted that Black draws
ordinated black king and bishop could only because of White’s backward
not compete against White’s K-side QNP. Were this pawn on QN4, Black
manoeuvres. could not escape defeat.
152 Bishops of Opposite Colours

though probably insufficient to save the

game. Here is the main variation of his
analysis: 6 P-R5 PxP 7 KxP B-B8 8
P-N3 K-K6 (or 5 . . . P^B5 9 P-R4
P-B6 10 P~B4 P-B7 11 B-R3) 9 P-B4
K-B7 (9 P-B5 10 K-N5 B-K7 . . . 11
^ P-B5) 10 BxP+ KxP 11 K-K5 P-R5.
Vladimirov considers this position to be
drawn, but P-B5 P-R6 (or 12 after 12

. K-B6 13 K-Q5! P-R6 14 B^Q6

. .

B~ Q6 15 P-B6 B-M8 16 P-R4 B-R7+ 17

Larsen-Hubner, Leningrad 1973 K-Q4!) 13 B-K3! White wins.
(Analysed by Shamkovich in the 6 B^N7 K-K3
Russian tournament book) 7 B-B3 B-Q2
346: 8 K-N5 K-B2
1 . . . B-N4? 9 P-R3
Black has just obtained the longed- Zugzwang: Black’s king cannot
for ending with opposite-coloured move, while his bishop must guard both
bishops, but immediately makes a his QR5 and
. . .
KB4 (in view of . . .

serious mistake. He should have the threat of P-R5).

promptly centralized his king and 9 . . . B-Bl
mobilized his passed pawn: 1 . . . 10 P-R4 B-Q.2
K-Q4! 2 P-R4 P-QB5 3 K-K3 P-B6. 11 P-QR5 B-Bl
Analysis shows that in this case a win for B-N2
12
White is hardly possible (4 K-B4 B-B8 Once again zugzwang.
5 P-N3?? P-B7!). Black’s last move is 12 .B-R3
. .

most probably the decisive mistake. 13 P-R5 PxP

2 K-K3 K-K4 14 KxBP 1-0
3 B-N7+ K-K3 An instructive ending.
4 B-B8
4 K-B4 was simpler.
4 . . . K-Q4
5 K-B4
White’s plan is to move his king to
KN5, where it will tie the black pieces

to the defence of the NP. Then his

passed pawn will have the deciding
word. The success of this plan depends
on whether or not Black can bring his

passed QBP into the action in time.

5 . . . P-B5
The last move in time trouble. 5 . . .
V asyukov-Bolesiavsky
K~Q5, suggested by B. Vladimirov, iShakhmarty v SSSR 1957)
would have been more stubborn. 347: Here Black established a
 Endgames with Pawns on Both Sides 153

winning position by 1 ... P-KR4,

when White replied 2 P-N4. (For the
positionswhich could have arisen after
2 P-N3, cf. the next two diagrams) The .

game concluded 2 . . . PxP 3 P-R5

P_R 4 4 B-N3 K-Bl 5 KxP K-K2 6
K-B5 B-Q5 7 K-K4 B-B6 8 K-B5
P-B3 9 K-K4 (or 9 K-N6 K- 10 KxP
P-B4^ 11 K-N6 P~B5 12 K-B5 P-B6 13
K-K4 P-B7 14 B-B4 K-B4!, and wins)
9 K-Q3 10 K-Q,3 B-K4 11 K-K4
. . .

K-B4 12 K-B5 K-N5 13 K-N6 P-R5 I. Boleslavsky, {Shakhmaty v SSSR 1957)

14 B-K6 P-R6 15 B-R2 K-B6 16 B-K6
B-Q5 17 B-N3 K-N7 18 K-B5 B-B6 b) B-R4 P-B5 4 PxP (or 4 K-B2
3
0-1. But not 18 . . . P-R7? 19 BxP KxB B~Q^ 5 K-N2 B-B66 K-B2-^PxP
20 P-B4 K-N6 21 P-B5 BxP 22 P-R6 B-K8 -6 ... PxP+ 7 K-N2 K-K3 8
PxP 23 KxP with a draw. B-K8 K-B3! 9 B-Q7 K-K4 10 B~K8
One of the following two positions K-B5 11 BxPB-B3) 4 BxP 5 P-B4 . . .

could have arisen ifWhite had chosen 2 B-K8 6 P-QB5 P-R5 7 P-B6 P-R6+ 8
P-N3: K-Bl K-Q3 9 P-B5 P-N6 10 P-B6
P-N7+, and wins.
To wage a united struggle against a
passed pawn, a bishop and king must
act harmoniously and be able to
manoeuvre without excessive limi-
tation.
Take No. 350

I. Boleslavsky, [Shakhmaty v SSSR 1957)

348: After 1 . . . P-N4 2 PxP+ PxP 3

B-N5 P-N5+ 4 K-N2 K-N4, Black
wins by bringing his bishop to . .
.
QB2
and then advancing his QjRP.
349: 1 . . . K-K2 2 B-N5 (the bishop
must continue to guard QR4) 2 . . .
A. Gerbstman 1930
B-B3, and now;
P-B4 K-Q3 4 B-K8 K-B4 5 B-Q7
a) 3 350: Black to move draws with either
B-K4 6 K-B2 K-N5 7 P-B5 P-R5 8 1 . . . B-N2 or 1 ...B-N4, but it is

BxBP P-R6 9 B-K6 KxP, and wins. White’s turn to move and after 1
154 Bishops of Opposite Colours ^
P-B6+! KxP 2 K-Q7 the third defensive" position, active king
familiar situation arises where the black play characterizes the manoeuvres.
pieces working together restrain the
enemy passed pawn. As it turns out, the
black QP performs a totally negative
function. White proceeds 3 K-KS!
B-K2 (Or 5 K-N2) 4 P-R3! Black
. . .

stands in zugzwang.
Since only the king can serve as an
escort for the passed pawn in endgames
of opposite coloured bishops, the
defender normally draws provided that
the king can be kept away from these
pawns.
Y. Averbakh 1954

352: The white king, unable to

invade the Q,-side, turns to the opposite
flank for an entryway.
1 K-B3 B-B8
2 K-Q4 B-K7
3 K-K5 K-Q2
Else 4 K— K6.
4 K-Q5.
The first achievement; now White
can advance the QRP. He attains
nothing by 4 K-B6 B-Q6 5 P-R6 BxP
Y. Averbakh 1951 6 KxP B-B5 7 K-N7 K-Kl 8 P-N6
B-Q6! 9 K-R6 B-B5! 10 K-R7 B-Q6!,
351: Here we see the third typical etc.

defensive position. Notwithstanding 4 . . . B-Q6

the two pawn advantage. White only 5 K-B5 B-K7
draws, since his king cannot penetrate, 6 K—Nfi B— B6
7 P-R6 K-Bl!
i’k-B 5 K-K3 2 K-N6 K-Q2 3 White threatened 8 K-R7, e.g., 7 . . .

P-N5 K-Bl!, etc. B-N7 8 K-R7 K-Bl 9 P-Q.7H- KxP 10

In error would be 3 ... B-B6 4 K-N8, winning.
P-R8=Q! BxQ. 5 K-R7 B-B6 6 (Yet Black could have answered 8
K-N8! White sacrifices a pawn to bring K-R7 with 8 . . . B-N5!, but not 8 . . .

his king to the aid of the QNP, which he B-B3? 9 B-N4 - Zugzwang - 9 . . .

will then escort to the queening square. B-R5 10 K-N6 B-Q8 11 P-Q7+ KxP
6 . . . B-N7 7 P-N6 K-B3 8 K-R7, etc. 12 K-N7, etc. - Kaplan.)
In the foregoing examples of basic White effects the pawn push, but
defensive positions, the weaker side what now? Only a return march to the
adopted basically passive tactics. In the kingside remains feasible.
 3

Endgames with Pawns on Both Sides 155

8 K-B5 K-Q2!
9 K-Q4 K-K3!
Clearly, White cannot break
through, as the black king guards all the
weak squares.
Notice that 9 . . . B-K7 10 P-R7
B-B6 K-K5 B-N 2 1 1 1 2 K-B6 B-K5 1

B-N4 K-Kl 14 K-K6 B-B3 loses to 15

P-Q7+! BxP 16 K-Q6!, etc. 10
Yet the stronger side wins, so long as 11

he can frustrate the completion of the

hostile king’s defensive task. Here Euwe-Yanofsky, Groningen 1946
follows an example.
K-Q4 B-Rl 12 K-B5 K-K3! 13 K-N6
K-Q2, etc.

K-B4! P-N3
P-N4! PxP 12 KxPB-R8 13K-N5
K-B2 14 B-Q4 B-N 7 15 P-R4 B-R8 16
P-N4 B-N7 17 P-N5 B-R8 18 B-B6!
(Isolating the black king from the Q-
side pawns and controlling the advance
of the KRP, White administers the key
move of his plan.) 18 . . . B-N7 (If 18

. . .B-K5, then 19 P-N6, and so forth, as

in the game.) 19 P-R5! PxP 20 K-B5!
1-0. His stranded king watches
Euwe-Yanofsky, Groningen 1946
helplessly, while the white king invades
the Q-side.
353: Black carelessly played 1 . . .

B-B7? and had to give up another pawn

cifter 2 B-B5! The game continued: 2
. . . B-Q6 3 BxP BxP 4 P-R6 P-B4! 5
BxP P-R4! An active defensive
position will save Black, so he goes
about arranging one. 6 K-B2 B-Q6! It

is important to keep the white king out

of QR7. 7 P-R7 B-K5 8 P-N3 K-K3 9
K-K3 B-N7? {354).
Having transferred play
354: to the
K-side and cut off the black king.
White, amazingly, can now reach the Solomenko-Bessmertny
Q-side pawns. Sverdlovsk 1952
But Black draws with 9 . . . K-B4! 355: A direct king march to the Q-
which guards the important invasion side fails, but the plan executed in the
square on KB5, e.g., 10 B-B8 P-N3 11 previous example wins.
 1

156 Bishops of Opposite Colours

K-R5! 2 K-B2 B-Q5+ 3 K-Bl

. . . P-R4), which means that White can
K-N6 4 B-N8 P-KR4 5 B-B7 P-N4 6 attempt to not just blockade the QjRP
B-K6 P-B3 7 B-B4 P-N5 8 RPxP PxP with his king, but simply win it: 2 K.-Q4
gPxPKxP 10B-K6+ K-N6 11 B-B4 K-B3 P-Qf(4 3 P-B4) 3 K-B4
(2 . . .

B-B7. A familiar manoeuvre. Black K-N4 4 K-N4 K-N5 (4 B^Q^ 5 . . .

cuts off the white king. 12 B-K6 P-B6 P-R4-\- and 6 B-Q6, with an
13 PxP KxP 14 B-N8 K-K6 and after unbreachable fortress) 5 B-Q6! K-B6
15 . . . B-R5, the black king reaches (5 . . . KxP K-N7 7
B-B8 6 P-R4) 6
QN7. K-N5 KxP (otherwise the QNP lost) is

8P-N4+ K-N7 9 P-N5 B-B4 10 K-N6

B-K5 11 B-B8, followed by B-R6 and
P-B4-B5, when White’s position is

impregnable.
In the game Vidmar decided for the
moment to adopt waiting tactics,

stopping the passed QRP with his

bishop.
2 B-R3 P-KN4
3 B-N4 K-N3
Here White made two moves
‘active’
- 4 P-B4 K-R4 5 K-B6 K-N5, and
Vidmar-Spielmann, St. Petersburg 1909 Black straight away gained the chance
(M. Dvoretsky, Shakkmatny Bulletin 1972) to break through with his king to the
passed QRP - the basic plan in such
356: White lost this ending, and this positions. The game concluded as
was considered the logical result by follows: 6 B-R3 B-N7 7 B-Q6 B-B8 8
Emanuel Lasker, Rabinovich, and a K-N7 K-B4 9 P-B5 P-R6 10 P-B6
number of other commentators. And P-R7 11 P-N4-h K-K5 12 B-K5 PxP
yet, as we will see. White could have 13 B-Rl P-B4 14 KxP P-B5 15 K-N6
saved the game, and what’s more, in a K-Q6 16 KxP P-B6, and White
number of ways. resigned.
With his first move, Here White, instead of attempting to
1 . . . B-R6! set up an impregnable defensive
Black fixed the object of attack - the position, tried for active counter-play,
backward pawn on R2. How should and went in for an unclear variation
White have conducted the defence? where Black’s advantage told.
First of all, let us consider whether or Let us play accurately for White - we
not it is possible to set up a basic will keep his king inside the zone where
defensive position. At first glance, the it can defend his KRP, while
answer appears to be no - Black wins preventing the approach of the enemy
the RP
and obtains a second passed king to the QRP.
pawn. But it should be noted that, for Instead of 4 P-B4, the correct
the moment, the black bishop is tied to continuation is 4 B-R3 K-R4 5 K-K4
the square . . . KR6 (preventing K-N5 6 K-K3 B-B8 {6 .. . K-B4 7
 3

. #

Endgames with Pawns on Both Sides 157

K-Qj^ or 7 K-Q^). Here Rabinovich variation: 9 . . . P-N4 10 B-B8 {10

considers the natural move, 7 B-K7, BxP? K-N5 and 11 .. K-B6) 10 . . . .

attacking the KNP, but in this case it is B-N3 B-K7 K-N5 2 K-B2 K-B4
1 1 1 1

unsuccessful. By continuing 7 . . . K-K2 K-K3 14 BxP K-Q4, and

K-R6! 8 K-B2 KxP! Black wins. Black’s king goes to the support of his
passed pawn.
But, in the first place, it is not clear
that in this way Black gains a decisive
advantage, e.g. K-Q2 K-B5 16
15
B-B6 P-R6 17 K-Bl K-N6 18 B-N7
{18 P-N4 is also good.) 18 . . . P-R7 {18
. . . B-Q6 19 B-B6 B-B5 20 K-Nl) 19
P-B4! PxP 20 K—Q2 with a draw.
And in the second place, the
variation is unconvincing, since by 11

B-K7 White presented his opponent

with a tempo for his king march.
Instead B-N4 would have been more
1 1

357: The variations are as follows: accurate, and if 11 ... K-N5, then 12
a) 9 KxB KxPBxP P-R6 11 P-B4 10 K-B2 K-B4 13 K-K3 K-K3 14
P-R7 12 B-B6 K-B6 13 K-Kl P-R4 14 K-Q4(Q2).
K.-Q2 P-R5 etc. The attempt to effect a break-
b) 9 BxP P-R6 10P-B4 (nothing is through with the king on the other
changed by 10 B-Bl P-R7 11 B-N2 wing, analogy in with the
B-B5) 10 BxP . . . 11 B-K7 P-R7 12 Euwe-Yanofsky game, is unsuccessful
B-B6 B-Q4 13 B-R8 K-R6 14 B-Rl here, e.g. B-N4 P-R4 12 B-B8 P-R5
1 1

K-N5 15 B-N7. 13 PxP KxP 14 K-B2 K-R6 15 B-K7

Can Black take his king over to P-KN5 B-Q6, with an easy draw,
16
support his passed pawns? The answer since Black gets nowhere either by 16
to this question is given by the game . .P-N5 17PxPP-R618B-K5,orby
.

Euwe - Yanofsky (Groningen 1946) in 16 B-R2 17 K-Nl P-N6 18 PxP

. . .

which the same position was reached K-N5 19 K-B2 K-B4 20 K-K3 K-K3
with colours reversed (cf. No. 354). 21 B-B8 K-Q4 22 K-Q2 K-B5 23
There followed: 15 P-R4 16 B-R8 . . . B-N7 P-R6 24 K-Bl.
P-N4 17 B-N7 P-N5 18 B-R8 B-B6!! Thus Vidmar could have saved the
19 B-N7 {19 B-K5 K-B4 and . . . game. We have not examined in detail

K-K5) 19 P-R5! 20
. . . PxP K-B5!, the whole of the ending, but have
and Black’s king reaches . . .
QN8 with concentrated only on two critical

ease. moments. It is not impossible that

But White can play more accurately: subsequently White could have
7 K-B2! B-Q6 8 B-K7 K-R6 9 K-Nl. seriously complicated his opponent’s
Rabinovich considers that this position task, but this does not lessen the
is also won for Black, and to significance of his mistakes in the choice
demonstrate this gives the following of plan.
158 Bishops of Opposite Colours

A fundamental winning idea in imprisoning his 'Own king on the

similar endgames involves diverting the kingside. ‘How absurd!’, the reader
enemy king from his duty, whether his might exclaim. But let us delve further.
job be blockading a passed pawn or Incidentally, White gets nowhere
protecting weak squares. When with 2 PxP PxP 4 KxP
P-N4 RPxP! 3
weaknesses, that only the king can K-K3 5 K-N5 B-K5! 6 P-R8-Q.
sheathe, occur elsewhere on the board, BxQ 7 KxP K-Q2 8 P-R5 K-B2,
attacking them will summon the draw, as Black gives up his bishop for
monarch. The building of a second the KRP.
passed pawn serves the identical 2 . . . B-K5!
purpose. 3 B-B2!
Sometimes a different method can be 3 B-Q4 B-B6! 4 P-N4 RPxP 5 P-R5
applied, in which the enemy king is cut PxP 6 KxP P-R5, draw.
off from the threatened passed pawn. 3 . . . K-N2
We just examined an instance of this If 3 . . . B-B6, then 4 P-N4!! anyway,
second type. 4. .RPxP (After 4. .BFxP5B~N3!
. .

Let us analyse one more example. K~M2 6 P-B5 PxP 7 KxP P-B5 8 BxP
P~NG^ 9 K-N5 P-K7 10 B-K3, and
White easily wins, shifting the king to
the Q-side.) 5 P-R5! PxP 6 KxBP
winning more simply than in the main
variation.
4 P-N4!! RPxP
After 4 BPx P, White proceeds 5 . . .

P-B5 PxP 6 KxRP K-B3 7 B-N3

B-B6 8 K-R6 B-K5 9 P-R5 B-B6 10
B-RTf K-B2 {10 ... K-K4 11 K-N5
P-B5 12 P-R6) K-N5 B-K5 2 B-N 3 1 1 1

K-N2 13 B-K5+ K-B2 14 P-R6, etc.

Y. Averbakh 1951 5 P-R5! PxP
6 P-R8=Q.! BxQ,
358: This position could have arisen 7 KxBP K-B2
in the game
Smyslov-Averbakh, White sacrifices his extra pawns,
Moscow, 1950. White must solve a very setting up a win in the materially level
subtle puzzle in order to win. endgame.
1 K-N5 K-B2 8 K-N5 B-B6
If 1 ... BxP, then 2 KxP K-K4 3 If8 K-K2, then 9 P-B5 K-Q2 10
. . .

B-K3 K-K3 4 B-B4, and Black forfeits P-B6 B-Q4 11 P-R7, etc.
another pawn, handing White an easy 9 P-R7 B-Rl
win. 10 B-R4 B-B6I
2 P-B4!! P-B511

A strange and unexpected move. Only a draw comes out of 11 KxP

White plans an eventual king excursion P-N6+ and 12 P-N7. . . .

to the Q-side pawns, yet he begins by 11... K-N2

 Endgames with Pawns on Both Sides 159

12 B-N3 K-B2
360
B-K5!
13 B-K5!
If 13 K-Bl, then 14 K-B6 P-R5
. . .
+
15 B-Q6-|- and on 15 K-Nl follows . . .

16 K-K7 or if 15 . . . K-Kl, then 16

K-N7.
14 KxP!! P-N6
15 BxP K-B3
16 K-N4! BxP+
17 K-B4!
and the QRP queens.
]. Berger 1895

had begun with 1

If Black . . . P-N5,
White would have followed K-B6 2
P-N6 3 B-Q7+ K-K2 4 B-R3 K-Ql 5
P-R6 R-B7 6 P-N5, etc.
The following two positions show the
theme of the study by Duras (cf. No.
266) being used in practice. Curiously,
here the bishops are opposite-coloured,
whereas in the study they are like-
coloured!

359: Both sides have passed pawns,

361
but White’s pawns are more dangerous.
His favourable pawn and piece
B
configuration leads Black into
zugzwang, resulting in the liquidation
of the enemy passed pawns, and
victory.
Let us examine in more detail
positions where both sides possess
passed pawns.
360: White has two passed pawns for
Black’s one. The game continued: Calvo-Hamman, Clare Benedict 1974
K-B5 K-K2 2 K-B6! (The flight 2
1

B-R5 only draws after 2 K-Q^ 3 . . . 361: Here White, after a long
P-R6 K-B2 4 P-N5 B-B74- thus, it is ;
meditation, offered a draw which was
important not to let the black king accepted by his opponent with great
approach.) 2 . . . KxB 3 P-R6 B-B7 4 relief. And with good reason, for there is
P_N5 P-N5 5 P-N6 P-N6 6 P-R7 a win in the position.
p_N7 7 P-R8=Q+ K-K2! 8 QrR3+ 1 . . . P-N8 = Q, BxQ. K-N7! 3
2
K-Kl 9 P-N7, winning. K-N4 B-B3 4 K-R4 B-B6 5 P-R8 = Q,
160 Bishops of Opposite Colours

BxQ6 K-N4 B-B3 7 K-R4 B-B6, and QBP, i.e., placing the bishop on QR5.
White is in zugzwang. He achieves this goal through precise
An identical position was reached in manoeuvring. The solution runs, 1

the following game. K-B3 B-B2 2 K-N4 B-K3 3 B-K5

K-Bl (After 3 . .. B-B2, White
continues with 4 K-B5 B-N6 5 K-Q6!
K-Bl 6 B--B3 and 7 B-R5, or if -^ . . .

K~B1, then 5 K-B6! B-K1+ 6 K-Q6

B^B2 7 B-B3, etc.) 4 K-B5 B-N6 5
K-N5! (5 K-B6? P-R4, draw) 5 . . .

K-N2 6 K-N4! R-B2 7 K-B5 K-Bl 8

K-B6 B-K1+ 9 K-Q6 B-B2 10 B-B3,
etc.

A correct distribution of respon-

sibilities takes on great importance in

the struggle against enemy passed

Szily-Karakas, Women’s Zonal 1960 pawns. Thus, just as in ‘bishop v. pawn’
endgames, the bishop performs the
362: 1K-N6 2 B-B7+ K-R6 3
. . . duty of controlling enemy pawns,
K-B2 P-N5 4 K-K3 P-N6 5 K-B4 whereas the king supports the advance
B-N2 6 B-Q6 B-Rl 7 B-B7 P-N7 8 of his own passed pawn.
B-N6 K-R7 9 K-N4 P-R6 10 K-R4 When both sides possess passed
B-B6 11 B-B5 P-N8=Q. 12 BxQ+ pawns, each side must guard against
K-N7!, and Black wins as above. the blockade of his own pawn while
striving for a blockade of the enemy’s.

A. Norlin
Pohlner-Chigorin, St. Petersburg 1881
363: White’s two separated passed
pawns oppose a single black pawn. An 364:
immediate march by the white king \ ... P-N4!
allows the push of the QRP, and erases 2 RPxP PxP
the win. The only way White can 3 PxP
triumph is by blockading the QjRP, From a material standpoint. White
while, at the same time, protecting the holds the advantage. In fact. Black has
 Endgames with Pawns on Both Sides 161

the more dangerous pawns, for his Here, however, the weak QP keeps the
bishop blockades all the enemy pawns,
4 black king at bay. White plays 2 B-Kl!
and his king stands free to support his (The correct move, as otherwise the KP
own pawns. and QP fall.) 2 . . . P-R6 3 B-N3 and
3 . . . P-B5! Black cannot reinforce his position.
If 3 . . . K-Q2? -
Averbakh givesas Instead of 1 ... NPxP, Black wins
in the text for the winning move - then withl . . .QPxP!!,e.g.,2B-KlP-R6 3
B-Q3 K-B2 5 B-Bl K-N3 6 K-K3! R-N3 P-N4 4 K-Q3 P-R4 5 B-R2
(Not 6 K-m?) 6 . . . K-R4 7 K-Q2 P-R5 6 B-N3 P-R6 7 B-R2 P-N5 8
P-B5! (Even easier is 7 . , . K-N5 8 K-B4 BxP, etc.
K-B2 P-B5 9 P-M.) 8 K-B2 KxP 9 As a rule, two connected passed
B-N2 K-B4 10 B-Rl K-Q5 11 B-N2 pawns win in a bishops of opposite
K-K6 12 B-Rl K-B7 13 K-Q.2 (Or 13 colours endgame, although the stronger
P-Q6 directly.) 13 P-N7 14 BxP . . . side must carefully avoid a blockade.
KxB 15 P-Q6 K-B6 16 P-Q,7 B-B3 17
P-Q8 = QBxQ. 18 K-B3, draw. It is
precisely this regrouping of the white
pieces that Black prevents with 3 . . .

P-B5! - Kaplan.
4 B-R2 P-B6
5 B-Nl K-Q2
The king heads for the QBP.
Examine No. 365

Leonhardt-Schlechter,
San Sebastian 1912

366: Black easily carries out his

advantage by establishing two

connected passed pawns: 1 . . . P-Q4! 2
PxP PxP 3 P-N4 K-K3 4 B-B5
P-QR3 5 B-N6 K-B4 6 B-B7 B-N4!
The bishop moves to KR4, eyeing the
Kotov-Botvinnik, Moscow 1947 KBP. 7 R-Q6 B-Kl 8 B-K7 B-R4 9
B-R4 P-K5! 10 PxP PxP 11 P-B4
365: Black has an outside passed B-B2 12 P-B5 B-Kl 13 B-K7 P-K64
pawn, besides the option of creating a 14 K-Kl K-N5, and White resigns, as
passed pawn on the queenside. The Black replies to 15 B-Q6 with 15 . . .

game continued: 1 PxP NPxP. An P-B6 16 B-N3 K-R6 17 K-Bl R-N4+

oversight, in the belief that two passed 18 K-Kl K-N7 and 19 . P-B7+.
. .

pawns on opposite flanks are effective Usually, when the king can attend
when they have the king’s support. the promotion of the pawns, a win
162 Bishops of Opposite Colours

follows. There are exceptions, however

(No. 367).

Herbstmann and Gorgiev 1929

P-Q8 = Q, 9 Q,-KB8+ KxP 10

Q_K8+ K-N4 11 B-K7+ K-R3 12
E. Somov 1927 B-B8+ K-N4 13 QrK7+ K-N3 14
Q_KN7+ K-R4 15 QrR6 mate.
%7: Black threatens to advance the In rare cases a poorly situated king
KNP, and it is not immediately becomes a target for attack. A restricted
apparent how White can offset this bishop may then perform a negative
plan. The solution to this study reads role, not only as an incompetent
B-K3 P-N6 2 K-Q,3! K-B8 3 K-B4
1 defender, but also by taking away
P_N 7 4 K-N5 P-N8 =Q5BxQKxB6 essential squares from the king.
K-N6! K-B7 {6... P-Q4 7 K-R7 B-B3
8 K-N6, etc., with ‘perpetual pursuit’) 7

K-B7! P-Q4 8 K-N8 B-B3 {8 ... P-Q5 369

9 KxB P-Q6 10 P-R6 P-Q7 11 P-R7,
+/
K-B7 B- N4 10 K-N6 B-B8
draw) 9 11

K-B5 B-N7 12 K-Q4!, draw.

A bishop struggling alone against a
passedpawn must have freedom of
movement; otherwise, the pawn can
queen even without king support.
Thus, after some elegantly accurate
moves in the following study by
Herbstmann and Gorgiev, the pawn
T. Gorgic\- 1935
queens by itself.
368: 1 P-B6! B-K5+! 2 P-B3! BxP+
3 K-R2 PxP 4 P-R6 P-B4 5 K-N3 369: After 1 P-N4+ K-R3 2 K-B6
B-K5 6 K-R4! (An unexpected P-K5 {2 ... K-R2 3 B-B5) 3 B-K6!
danger. White threatens 7 B-B8 mate.) P-K6 4 B-B4+ K-R2 5 P-N5 K-Rl 6
6 . . . K-N2 7 B-K5+ K-B2 8 B-Q4. B-Q5 K-R2 {6 .. P-K7 7 P-M) 1 .

If 4 . . . K-N3 B-Q4 6
P-Q5, then 5 B-B3 K-Rl, White mates in two with 8
B-B5! P-Q6 7 P-R7 P-Q,7 8 P-R8 =Q. P-N6 PxP 9 KxP mate.
 Endgames with Pawns on Both Sides 163

370: The assault focuses on the

crippled white bishop.
1 K-R3 B-N4 2 P-N4 B-B8+ 3
K-N3 B-N7 4 P-N5 B-B3 5 K-R3
B-K2-|- 6 K-N3 B-B4. White stands in
zugzwang and must relinquish his
bishop. However, 7 K-R4!! KxB yields
stalemate.
Perhaps stronger is 1 B-B3 2
...
p_N4 B-N7+ 3 K-N3 P-N4, once
again forcing the white bishop into
zugzwang, but after 4 B-Nl!! stalemate
A. Gerbstman 1954 recurs, too.
 yi

\
 4

Index of Players, Composers and Analysts

Numbers refer to pages

Alapin 41 Charousek 50
Alatortsev 98, 1 13 Cheknover 32-5, 63-4, 139
Alekhine 7, 56, 95 Cheron 12, 14, 134, 137-8
Averbakh 2-3, 5-7, 10-13, 15-17, 22, Chigorin 63, 160
31-2, 36, 38-9, 41, 44, 46, 52, 57, 59, Coin 84
66, 69-71, 74-5, 77-80, 82-3, 88-90, Crum 73
93, 95, 98-9, 109-11, 114, 119, 121,
128, 131-6, 138, 140-1, 143-4, delRio 47
150-1, 154, 158 Donner, 102, 117
Doroshkevich 136
Balogh 108 Dutisnky 144-50
Bannik 108 Duras 47, 87, 105, 113
Barcza 108 Dvoretsky 141
Baslavsky 118
Baluyev 47 Eliskases 96, 108-9

Belova 1 1 Estrin, 105, 117

Benediktsson 80 Euwe 95, 112, 155, 157

Berger, J. 14, 24-5,43, 124-5, 129, 136,
159 Fine 58, 77-9, 86, 99, 101, 106-7, 124-5
Berger 135 Flohr 50, 115
Bessmertny 155 Fridstein 114
Bhend 135
Birnov 59 Ganshin 42-3
Boleslavsky 152-3 Geller 109
Bondarenko 55 Goglidze 80, 92, 108
Bondarevsky 102 Gorogiev 162
Botvinnik 14, 102, 144, 161 Grigoriev 5, 74-6, 104
Bronstein 87 Gurvich 49

Calvo 159 Hachaturov 76

Capablanca 61, 74, 93-^, 96, 108-9 Hallstrorn 74
Caro 50 Hamman 159
Centurini 68, 71, 73, 81 Hansen 40-1
166 Index

Havasi 54 Lomov 57
Henkin 144-50 Loyd 18
Henneberger 4, 128-9 Lyublinsky 151
Herbstman 56, 153, 162^
Hevacker 84 Marshall 83, 118, 150
Hodes 54 Masoedov 61
Hort 117 Matanovic 119
Horwitz 38, 49, 72 Metger 22
Horwitz and Kling 1, 5, 24-5, 37, Mikhailov 87
40, 48, 55, 66 Moravec 78
Hiibner 152 Moiiterde 84

Nadereishvili 2
Ilyin-Zhenevsky 61, 122 Nei 100
Ivashin 1 1 Neishtadt 36
Nimzowitsch 142
Janowsky 74, 93^ Nogovyn 7

Norlin 160
Kamishov 1 16
Kan 100 Olafsson 80
Karakas 160 Ostrovsky 55
Kashdan 92, 101 Otten 8
Kasparian 80, 92
Kayev 40 Pape 58
Kazantsev 143 Paulsen 22
Keres 97-8, 106, 116 Petrosian 103
Kevitz 58 Philidor 126
Kondratiev 118 Pinkus 120
Kosek 23 Pirc 1 1

Kotlerman 135 Platov, V. 107

Kotov 105, 144, 161 Pohlner 160
Kubbel, I. 123 Ponziani 19
Kubbel, L. 18, 51, 115 Portisch 56-7

Larsen, 152 Rabinovich 125, 157-7

Lasker 61, 156 Ragozin 87
Leepin 135 Ravzer 24-7, 29, 37, 47
Leonhardt 161 Red 7-8, 29, 43, 49-50, 58, 91
Leonidov 44 Rinck 7

Levenfish 111, 113 Roth 58

Lewitt 8, 17, 150
Liburkin 84 Salvioli 127, 131, 133M
Lilienthal 97-8, 106-7, 112 Santasiere 86, 92
Lipnitsky 72, 79, 92 Schlechter 161
Lisitsin 1 1 Seibold 97
 Index 167

Shamaev 1 16 Troitsky 9, 19, 32, 60, 83, 85

Shamkovich 60 Tylor 56
Shishov 136
Shumov 63 Udovcic 117
Sillye 160 Utyatsky 62-3
Smyslov 102, 116
Sokolsky 60, 72, 79, 92 Vasyukov 152
Solomenko 155 Veresov 95, 100-1
Somov 162 Vidmar 156
Sozin 14
Spassky 60, 100-1
Wade 120
Spielmann 156
Walker 35, 38, 47
Stahlberg 106-7
Weenink 15, 22
Stein 56-7, 100-1
Wotawa 42
Strandstrem 114
Streltsov 11, 13
Strepanov 122 Yanofsky 120, 155, 157
Yaroslavtsev 80-1

Tan 109
Tarrasch 15, 126-30, 142 Zagorovsky 45, 115
Teichmann 27, 83, 118 Zakhodyakin 17, 48, 60, 64
Thomas 50 Zeinally 103
Tolush 106-7 Zhigrs 30, 49
Trifunovic 31 Zhitenev 62
 '
v^.,' ?*» i
fi^ k.

IGRSw. rjifL' :>»v ^ ag»?‘»r*.^

-
' w V, .>
-figPMiBa .
-

v/x- :rM«[ -0^^' 'y

i ^
 \

b,shopendingsOOaver
Other titles in this senes

Pawn Endings
Y. Ax erbakh, I. Maizelis

Queen and Pawn Endings

Yuri Axerbakh

Bishop V. Knight Endings

Yuri Ax'erbakh

In preparation:

Knight Endings
Queen and Minor Piece Endings
Rook Endings
Rook V. Minor Piece and PawTi Endings

Other endgame books

Practical Chess Endings

Paul Keres

Rook Endings
G. Lex enfisli, \k Smyslox'

Forfurther titles, please turn to the back of the jacket

ISBN o 7134 0096 X

O rHP:R BA TSFORD CHESS BOOKS
figuruie algebraic notation descriptive notation

SPECIALIST CHESS OPENINGS THE CLUB player’s LIBRARY

The Batsford Guide to Chess Openings
Ruy Lopez: Breyer System
E. W. Barden, T. D. Harding
L. S. Blackstock
Think Like a Grandmaster
Sicilian: ...e5
Alexander Kotov
T. D. Harding, P. R. Markland
Learn from the Grandmasters
Sicilian: Najdorf
Edited by R. D. Keene
Michael Stean
An Opening Repertoire for the
Nimzowitsch /Larsen
Attacking Club Player
Raymond Keene
David Levy, Raymond Keene

TOURNAMENT AND MATCH RECORDS It’s Your Move

R. Teschner, A. J. Miles
The Batsford Chess Yearbook (1974/5)
Edited by Kevin J. O’Connell
GENERAL
The Batsford Chess Yearbook 1975/6 Chess and Computers
Edited by Kevin J. O’Connell David Levy

A Contemporary Approach to the

GAME COLLEGTIONS AND BIOGRAPHIES
Middle Game
The Complete Games of World Champion Aleksei Suetin
Anatoly Karpov
Complete Chess Strategy i:

K. J.
O’Connell, D. N. E. Eew, Planning the Pieces
JB- Adams Ludek Pachman

Complete Chess Strategy 2:

ENCYCLOPAEDIA OE CHESS OPENINGS
Pawn-Play and the Centre
Volume B: i e4: 1...C5, i...g6, i...c6 Ludek Pachman
I... Nib, i...d6, i...Nc6
King, Queen and Knight:
Edited by A. Matanovic
A Chess Anthology
Volume C: i e4 e5, i e4 eb Norman Knight and Will Guy
Edited by A. Matanovic
Sacrifices in the Sicilian
Volume D: i d4d5, i d4Nfb D. N. L. Levy
2 C4 gb with ...dy

Edited bv A. Matanoxac