An unexamined life is not worth living.

Sunday, May 31, 2009

Paul Keres Memorial 2002 – part 1 – 3 wins by Bobby Meng

In 2002 Keres memorial - Bobby Meng was provided a sensation result, tying for first place with Georgi Orlov and Jack Yoos among others, beating the new Canadian Champion Pascal Charbonneau in the process. I wrote a report about the tournament for En Passant, so here is the selection of Bobby`s games. I analysed 3 games in that article:
Pupols – Meng
Adam - Meng

(1) Meng,Fanhao - Wu,Howard [D42]
Keres mem 27th Vancouver (1.10), 17.05.2002

1.e4 c5 2.c3 Bobby is a loyal supporter of this move and it does bring him good results. 2...Nf6 3.e5 Nd5 4.d4 cxd4 5.cxd4 Nc6 6.Nf3 d6 7.exd6 e6 8.Nc3 Bxd6 9.Bd3 0-0 10.0-0 Diagram


10...Be7 [10...Nce7!?] 11.a3 [I prefer 11.Re1 , but Bobby usually goes for queenside play in these IQP positions] 11...Bf6 suddenly the game transposed into the major theoretical QGD line. White is doing well in this line, so I don't think Black's two move manoeuvre Bd6-e7-f6 was really worth the time investment 12.Be3 [Again, Bobby ignores main lines: 12.Be4 scores well for White] 12...g6 13.Rc1 Nxc3 14.bxc3 e5 [14...b6 15.Bh6 Bg7 16.Bg5 Qc7 17.c4 Bb7 18.d5 Ne5 19.Be4 Qd6 was Gelfand-Van Wely, 1998. The position soon simplified to a draw: 20.Bf4 exd5 21.Bxd5 Bxd5 22.Bxe5 Bxe5 23.Nxe5 Qxe5 24.Qxd5 Qxd5 25.cxd5 Rfd8 26.Rfd1 Rac8=] 15.Bb5 Bg4 16.d5 e4? a miscalculation [>=16...Ne7+/=] 17.dxc6 exf3 18.Qxd8 Raxd8 Diagram


19.Bc5? Now Black is doing ok again [19.cxb7!+-] 19...fxg2 20.Kxg2 bxc6 21.Bxf8 [21.Bxc6!? Rd3 22.Bxf8 (22.f3 Rc8 23.Be4 Rxc3 24.Rxc3 Bxc3 25.fxg4 Rxc5 26.Rc1 Bd4=) 22...Bh3+ 23.Kg1 Bxf1 24.Bc5! Bh3 25.Bxa7 Bxc3 26.Be4 Rd7 and Black is ok] 21...cxb5 22.Bc5 Rd3?! [>=22...a6] 23.f3 Be6 24.Rfd1 Rxd1 25.Rxd1 Bxc3 26.Rd8+ Kg7 27.Bxa7 Bb2?! [27...b4!? 28.axb4 Bxb4 29.Bd4+ Kh6; 27...Kf6] 28.Bd4+! Bxd4 29.Rxd4 Diagram


and White managed to win this endgame29...Kf6 30.Kf2 Ke5 31.Ke3 Bb3 32.Rd7 Ke6 33.Rb7 Bc4 34.Kd4 g5 35.Kc5 h5 36.Kd4 [36.Rxb5 Bxb5 37.Kxb5 is not more than a draw for White 37...Kd6 38.Kb6 g4 39.fxg4 hxg4 40.a4 f5] 36...f6 37.Rc7? [37.a4 Be2 38.Ke3 Bc4 39.axb5 was winning on a spot] 37...Kf5 38.Ke3 Kg6 39.Rc5 Kh6 40.Ke4 Kg6 Diagram


41.h4 [Bobby's calculation (or intuition?) is precise: 41.Rxc4 here (and earlier) does not win: 41...bxc4 42.a4 f5+ 43.Kd4 g4 44.fxg4 fxg4 45.a5 h4 46.a6 g3 47.hxg3 hxg3 and Black queens with check] 41...gxh4 [41...Be2 42.hxg5 fxg5 43.Rc6+ Kg7 44.Kf5 Bxf3] 42.f4 h3 43.Kf3 Bf1 44.Kg3 Be2(.) [44...Kh6 45.Kh4 h2 46.Rxh5+ Kg6 47.f5+! Kf7 48.Kg3] 45.Kxh3 Kf7 46.Kh4 Ke6 47.Rc2 Bd3 48.Rc3 Bf1 49.Kxh5 Kf5 50.Rc2 Bd3 51.Rf2 Ke4 52.Kg4 f5+ [52...Ke3 53.Rf3+ Ke4 54.Rh3] 53.Kg5 Ke3 54.Rb2 Ke4 55.Rb4+ Kd5 56.Kf6 Kc6 57.Ke5 Kc5 58.Rd4 Bb1 59.Rd5+ Kc4 60.Ke6 Bd3 61.Rxd3 1-0

(2) Pupols,Viktors - Meng,Fanhao [D12]
Keres mem 27th Vancouver (5.5), 19.05.2002


27...Kf7 In this game Bobby got lucky: having been outplayed, he is now receiving a couple of strong blows: [27...Kd8!?] 28.g5 fxg5 29.Nxd5!? exd5 30.Bxd5+ Kg7 Diagram


31.Rc6!? [31.Bxa8] 31...Qd8 32.Rg1 Re8 Diagram


33.Qc1? A strange decision, having conducted the attack with great energy White suddenly retreats. [Winning was 33.Qf3! Rf8 34.Qh5 Rf6 35.Rxf6 Nxf6 36.Qxg5 Nxd5 37.Qxg6+ Kf8 38.Rf1++-] 33...Rc8 34.Rxg5 Ndf8 35.Rxc8 Qxc8 36.Qxc8 Rxc8 37.Bb7 Rd8 38.Rg4 Rd6 Diagram


Black consolidated and went on to win this endgame with an extra piece. 0-1

(3) Adam,Valerian - Meng,Fanhao [C50]
Keres mem 27th Vancouver (3.4), 18.05.2002

1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Bc5 4.0-0 Nf6 5.d3 d6 6.Be3 Bb6 7.h3 0-0 8.Nc3 Be6 9.Bxb6 axb6 10.Bxe6 fxe6 11.d4 Nd7 12.d5 exd5 13.Nxd5 Nc5 Diagram


I think this is Bobby's best game in the tournament: he manages to play around the White knight on d5 and his own knights start an impressive tango: the semi-open 'f' file, and the h2-h3 advance provide Black with good chances on the kingside.14.c3 Kh8 15.Qe2 Ne7 16.a3 Ng6 17.g3 White covered both d4 and f4, but now the Nf3 lacks support 17...Ne6 18.Qe3 h6 Bobby makes sure that White can never play Ng5, trading off a badly placed N 19.Rad1 Qd7 20.Kh2 Rf7 21.h4 Qb5 Diagram


playing on both flanks reveals a rather mature positional player22.h5 Raf8!? [22...Ne7?! 23.Nxe7 Rxe7 24.Nh4 would have allowed the White N to get to better squares, now he has to go down..] 23.Ng1?! [23.Nd2!?] 23...Ne7 24.b4 Nxd5 25.exd5 Diagram




Very nice! Black traded off White's strong Nd5, and White is now left out with a passive Ng1 26.f3 Qd7 27.Kg2 Rf6! 28.Qe2 Qf7 29.g4 Rf4 30.c4 Qd7 31.Rde1 Kg8 32.Kg3 Kh8 33.Kg2 e4! Diagram


Now White's pawn structure collapses34.fxe4 Qxg4+ [34...Rxg4+ 35.Kh2 Rxf1 36.Rxf1 Rxe4 was probably an easier way to win - perhaps a bit typical for Bobby: if he sees a good continuation, he sometimes does not stop to look for anything better] 35.Qxg4 Rxg4+ 36.Kh2 Rxf1 37.Rxf1 Rxe4 38.Rf8+ Kh7 39.c5 bxc5 40.bxc5 dxc5 41.Rc8 Re7 42.Kg2 g6 43.hxg6+ Kxg6 Diagram


and having centralized his K, Black won without any difficulties 0-1

Saturday, May 30, 2009

Opposite Coloured Bishops – part 4

Continued from Part 3. The following positions have rooks on the board in the beginning.

(6) Berry Jonathan (2272) - Yoos Jack (2371)
2000 B.C. championship (6), 23.04.2000


With rooks it is often hard to give a definitive evaluation of a position, one can just talk about winning or drawing chances. But it is very important to correctly evaluate the simplified pure ending with bishops of opposite colours, in order to make a right decision at the critical moment. 42...Bc6 White's up two pawns, so he is probably winning. 43.Bd8! Bxe4 44.Bxc7 Bc6 45.g5!? Diagram


White intends to play Bc7-d8-f6, and Rh4. Black's response seems to be forced... 45...f5 But is it? ? [45...Re1+!? 46.Kh2 Re2! 47.Rg4 Kf8 was certainly better. White is tied up to defence of g2, and Black can has good drawing chances.] 46.gxf6+ Kxf6 47.Rf4+ Kg7 48.Bb6 Re2 49.Rf2 ! note that White did not have this option if Black activated the rook on move 45. Also now that the double g5 pawn is traded off, the endgame without rooks is easier to win for White. 49...Re1+ both players correctly evaluated the position without rooks as winning for White. 50.Kh2 Be4 51.Bd4+ Kg8 52.Kg3 Bd3 53.Kh4 Re7 54.Kg5 Rf7 Otherwise Rf2-f6xg6 was going to be unpleasant. 55.Rxf7 Kxf7 56.g4 Diagram


56...Bc2 57.h4 Bd3 58.h5 gxh5 59.gxh5 Ke6 60.h6 Bh7 61.c4 Bd3 [61...Kf7 62.b5 Bd3 (62...Kg8 63.c5 Be4 64.c6) 63.c5 Kg8 64.c6+-] 62.c5 Kf7 Black seems to have blocked everything, but White has prepared a breakthrough. [62...Be4 63.b5] 63.b5 ! 63...axb5 [63...Be4 64.c6] 64.c6 ! 64...bxc6 65.a6 c5 66.a7 [Be4 66.h7 ] 1-0

Opposite Coloured Bishops – part 3

Continuing from part 2, Let's look at some typical ideas:
1) The strength of connected pawns
2) Distant passed pawns
3) Pawn weaknesses
4) Active king
5) Rule of one diagonal
(5) Smyslov Vassily (RUS) - Stein Leonid (UKR)
Ch URS Moscow (Russia), 1969


37.Bd4 ! Now White effectively has two extra pawns on the kingside. 37...a6 38.Kf4 Ke6 39.Kg5 Kf7 40.Kf4 Ke6 41.Bb6 Bb3 42.g4 hxg4 Diagram


43.Kxg4 ! 43...Bd1 44.Kf4 Kf7 45.Bd4 Kf8 46.Ke3 Kf7 47.Be5 Ke6 48.Bg3 Kf6 Black makes things harder for White by attacking the f3 pawn. 49.Bf4 Ke6 Diagram


50.h5!! gxh5 51.Bg3 White's plan now is very simple: f3-f4-f5, Kf4, Bh4, etc. Despite even material Black is helpless against the advance of the White pawns; sacrificing the bishop (as in theoretical position #3) would not work of course, as White has queenside pawns left. 1-0

Friday, May 29, 2009

Opposite Coloured Bishops – part 2

Part 1
(2) Theoretical position # 1


1.c5 ! Otherwise Black would come to d6 with the king, with a winning position 1...Bxc5 2.Bb3 ! 2...e5 3.Ke4 White can simply shuffle his bishop along the c8-h3 diagonal. This position illustrates how blockade can compensate for huge material disadvantage. Also, we can see that a pawn can be less important than certain positional factors, such as the colour of squares on which the enemy's pawns are located.

(3) Theoretical position # 2


1.Bh4+ ! Controlling 'f6'. White has to prevent Black from sacrificing the bishop for two pawns. [1.Bb4+ ? 1...Kf7 2.Kd4 Bb1 3.e6+ Kf6 4.e7 Kf7 0.00] 1...Kf7 2.Kd4 [2.e6+ ?? 2...Bxe6 0.00] 2...Kg7 3.e6 and White wins as after Ke5 the pawns keep advancing *

(4) Theoretical position # 3


1...Bd7! Here Black manages to make a draw. 2.Kf4 Bc8 The bishop just goes back and forth, while attacking 'f5' pawn, so that the White cannot get to d6 in order to support e5-e6. The 'f5' pawn being under pressure is an important defensive idea in these endings: if it advances, Black will immediately setup a blockade on the dark squares. Thus it has to be protected by the white king and White cannot make any progress. 1/2-1/2

Wednesday, May 27, 2009

Opposite Coloured Bishops – part 1

This begins the series of posts based on one of my articles that was published in En Passant, the Canadian chess magazine. I made little changes to the original contents, and just converted each example into a separate blog post.

When people talk about endgames they are often not sure what exactly is meant by this term. Sometimes any position without queens is called an endgame. A more sophisticated approach is to look at the role of kings. If the king can play an active role in the game without serious risk, usually this is called an endgame. And yet there are exceptions to this definition. To clarify the terminology, a famous coach M. Dvoretsky introduced the concept of 'simple positions', where one of the type of pieces is absent - either rooks, queens or minor pieces. Understanding simple positions is often more important than knowing precise theoretical positions. The most common type of simple positions is rook+minor piece vs. rook+minor piece. I would like to mainly deal with one type of such positions, where each side has a rook + bishop, with the bishops of opposite colours. We will also need to explore the endings with only bishops of opposite colours.

(1) Jiganchine R - Baryshev
Moscow team ch (4), 15.02.1998


28.Rb1 Here I naively expected either a draw offer, or a simplification of the position. In fact, Black has some advantage: his rooks have open files against my pawns; his bishop is more active than mine. 28...Rfc8 29.Be4 Rc5 30.Ra1 Ra5 31.a4 ? 31...bxa3 32.Rxa3 Rxa3 33.bxa3 Rb1+ 34.Kg2 Ra1 35.Rd3 Ra2 36.Rb3 a5 Diagram


I failed to find any plan, and allowed my opponent to invade with his rook. My pieces are so uncoordinated that I cannot save a pawn. 37.Rb8+ Kg7 38.Rb3 a4 39.Rf3 Bf4 40.h4 f6 41.hxg5 hxg5 42.Rf1 Rxa3 43.Bd3 Rc3 44.Ra1 a3 45.Kf3 Kf7 46.Ke2 Ke7 47.Kf3 Kd8 48.Ke2 Kc7 49.Kd1 Kb6 50.Rb1+ Ka5 51.Rb8 Rc5 52.Ra8+ Kb4 53.Rb8+ Ka4 54.c4 [54.Ra8+ Trading off rooks cannot save White: the 'a' pawn would cost me a bishop. 54...Ra5 55.Rxa5+ Kxa5 56.Bc4 Kb4 57.Ba2 Kc3-+] 54...dxc3 55.Bc2+ Ka5 56.Ra8+ Kb6 57.Rxa3 Rxd5+ 58.Ke1 Bd2+ 59.Kf1 Diagram


59...Rb5 ?? Just as I was considering timely resignation, here comes the amnesty. [59...Re5 after 60.Ra8 Re1+ 61.Kf2 Rc1 62.Bb3 Bf4 63.Rf8 Be5 White's counterplay against f6 is eliminated, and Black can start invading with his king.] 60.Rb3 ! Of course! After the exchange of rooks I can block the Black pawns. 60...Rxb3 61.Bxb3 Kc5 62.Ke2 Kd4 63.Bc2 d5 64.Bd3 Ke5 Diagram


65.Kf3 Ke5-f4 was threatened; Black's only hope is to win my g4 pawn, but this is impossible. 65...Bf4 66.Bb1 Kd4 67.Ke2 White established a fortress. 67...Kc4 68.Bc2 Kb4 69.Kd3 Be5 1/2-1/2 Black tried to win for another 30 moves, as I was low on time, but finally my claim for a draw was accepted.

A very instructive game. I remember being surprised twice: 1) when my opponent did not offer me a draw and then outplayed me. 2) when he allowed me to trade off rooks and then still thought he had a win.

Everybody has heard that endgames with bishops of opposite colours are drawish, because it is very often possible to set up a blockade on the squares of colour of one's own bishop. Then even a 2 or 3 pawn advantage can be insufficient for a win, just as in my game against Baryshev. Positional subtleties are usually more important than material. A defending side can sacrifice a pawn to set up a blockade or a fortress; a stronger side can sacrifice material to create a passed pawn or to get access to the opponent's weakness. Future posts will show some theoretical positions…

Saturday, May 23, 2009

Endgame with opposite colour bishops

Change He Li – Howard Wu, Keres Memorial 2009

image Black to move. Can he win this endgame?

I enjoy poking at random endgame positions and try to understand if they are winning or not. While looking at this endgame for a few seconds during my own game - I wondered if Black can win this position. It seemed that because he can get two connected passed pawns on the kingside - his chances should be very high. The correct plan should have started with a move like f6, followed by g5:

In analysis, I can’t see how White can prevent a position like this, so this confirms my quick evaluation:

image (Analysis position) After 50… g3+ , the pawn structure favours Black

The key is, of course, to advance pawns on dark squares, to prevent a typical blockade. Notice how White’s disconnected pawns on the queenside are blocked and useless. The game, however, went quite differently: Black played f7-f5, so White was able to advance h4-h5, and effectively separate Black’s pawns (a draw was soon agreed):

image (Game continuation) After 42. h5 – this pawn structure allows White to make a draw.

If you can see a way for White to make a draw in the initial position with best play from both sides - please leave your comments! Here is some more extensive analysis in the viewer:

Double piece sacrifice – exploiting the diagonal

Jiganchine – Chang He Li, 2008

image  White to move

Playing in this year’s Keres against the young talent Change He Li - surely reminded me of a combination that I had overlooked against him about a year before that. I played 13. Bf2, and won that game in a long endgame. Shortly after playing this move - I noticed the winning Nxe6 shot:

13. Nxe6!! fxe6 14. Nxd5
14… exd5 15. Bxd5+ Kh8 16. Bxa8 +-

White has a rook and 3 pawns for a piece, and his pawns in the center are very active. This was one of the cases where during the game to avoid distraction - you don’t want to look back and wonder what would have happened if you had played a better move.

Wednesday, May 20, 2009

Paul Keres Memorial 2009 - overview

Jack Yoos had a great tournament this year, only a month after moving to Vancouver from Montreal. Welcome back, Jack!

Just like I gave an overview of my BC Closed games last October, here are some little notes with quick impressions of my play.

Round 1: LeBlanc – Jiganchine (0-1)

image Black to move.

White is a bit better: 16… Rxd6 is not good due to 17. c5 and the knight on d6 is strong.. Since my bishop is also attacked, I decided to move it with a gain of tempo, playing 16… Bg4. White responded with a big blunder – 17.f3??. After Qxd4+, black picks up up two pawns, so the game ended pretty quickly: 17… Qxd4+ 18. Kh1 Bxf3 19. Rad1 Qxd1 20. Qxd1 Bxd1 21. Rxd1 Ne8 0-1

This surely reminded me of my game against Paul from last year’s Keres where after my blunder he had a winning position, but blundered back and lost.

Round 2: Jiganchine – Orlov (1-0)

If you live in BC, Canada then - basically Georgi Orlov is the strongest player you get to regularly see. And after playing in Keres Memorial 6 times – I never actually got to play him – until the 7th tournament. Jack Yoos and Sergei Sokourinski used to have an argument about whether Orlov and Spraggett were of similar strength, and while Jack was convinced (based on his own score against each) that Spraggett is stronger, the very fact of comparison being made speaks volumes.

Black risked a bit more than he should have in the opening, and the ‘star’ move definitely came here, after Black played … c5.

image White to move

19. Bc6!

No, this is not me drawing the arrow on the diagram incorrectly - the bishop actually did stop one square short from taking the rook. The rook is not running away (taking it would give Black compensation), instead White totally dominates central squares and increases pressure against c5 pawn with Qd5 coming. After the game Georgi admitted having missed this move. He then had to give a rook for a dark squared bishop, and my light squared bishop live to tell the tale, the game ended after some complications in this position:

image White to move

38. Rbf7! and Black resigned since Bf3 mate can’t be prevented without giving up the queen.

After this game – the tournament kind of ended for me – I took a bye, and then still could not play normally since the feeling of having done something special overwhelmed me. This was the first time I played an International Master in my entire life, so to score a win from the first attempt felt quite extraordinary. I realized that Georgi was rusty, and that he comes to Keres Memorial to play risky chess against local amateurs like myself which does mean he loses a game like this once every couple of years, but I still could to get back to my senses (I did try quite hard).

Round 3:  bye (1/2) I was quite exhausted after the previous game, and having been tired before the tournament (this programmer’s been very busy at work recently) – I had planned to take a bye anyway, so this seemed like a good moment for that.

Round 4: Jiganchine – Gentes (1/2-1/2)

image 24… Qb6

After some manoeuvring by both sides, in this position Kevin offered me a draw, which I accepted. During previous few moves I was mostly focused on keeping positional balance.

Round 5: Pechisker – Jiganchine (1/2 – 1/2)

This was the game that really threw me off balance and probably had to do with my dismal play the next day. Alfred has a style that I find hard to adjust to, so every game against him is usually hard for me. Just like in our last game in the BC Closed, I got a great position out of the opening (Slav defence), but failed to convert.

image Black to move

23… Bd5! White has to give up a pawn with 24. e4 just to rescue his tied up pieces.

However a few moves later, the game was somewhere between winning for Black, and a draw and I made a humongous error:

image 35… a6? allowed 36. Nc5, and suddenly my pawns are weak, pieces are passive, and I am low on time.

That kind of move is hard to explain, but I think, I had planned c6-c5, and was concerned about a5-a6, and Nb3-a5-b7 with counter play. Fortunately this time my desperate measures worked, and in the complications Alfred offered a draw, which I accepted. I was terrified however that I allowed such massive counter play in a technical position.

Round 6: Jiganchine - ChangeHe Li (1/2 – 1/2)

image White to move

Another Sicilian Scheveningen, just like in round 4, and again my understanding of position was lacking.
In my quick preparation the morning before the game I had anticipated something similar (an early e4-e5 break), but did not look deep enough.
Here apparently 12.Bxb7 Qxb7 13.Qh5! scores around 90%. I instead played 12. Bf4 and after 12…Nc6 took the knight and offered a draw. I was uncomfortable playing a young improving player, but also getting increasingly worried that I misplayed something (which was kind of true). I also wanted to get some rest before the final round (but had I known that after a draw I would get to play Jack, I would have re-considered).

Round 7: Yoos – Jiganchine (1–0)

I had not lost to Jack Yoos since 1999, but I still remembered the feeling of getting blown off the board before the opening was over. I really wanted to avoid that, so instead of my main opening as Black – I played the line in the Caro-Kann, which I believed to be passive but solid.
Jack played very energetically and still had a very dangerous initiative:

image Black to move

Being tired from defending for the last couple of hours - I missed the most obvious threat created by 19.Nc2 – which is Bxc4, and knight has to keep guarding d7, so White gets his pawn back with great position. Trying to get Nh6 into the game - I played 19…f7-f6? (instead Rd8 was better) and after 20.exf6 gxf6 21.Bxc4! and Rhe1 – I made a few more blunders and lost fairly soon (but things were really going downhill at that point). I was very impressed by the way Jack treated this opening variation (and wished I had put up a better resistance).

Monday, May 11, 2009

Keres Memorial 2009

I am planning to play in the Paul Keres Memorial 2009 Open chess tournament this coming weekend. It is a nice annual tournament ran by BC chess enthusiasts to commemorate the fact that Paul Keres’ last tournament win was held in Vancouver in 1975. Even though my last year’s preparation for the tournament was far from perfect, this year it was even worse as in the last couple of months I barely looked at chess. I hope to write a mini-report similar to the one I did last year, but for now I decided to please myself with the collection of little combinations from my own games that I played over the years in the Keres Memorial tournament. In a couple of the diagrams I don't give the solution so you can try to figure out the answer (not very difficult).

Fullbrook – Jiganchine, 2000

image Black to move – full details here -

Jiganchine – Huber, 2001
  image White to move. 26. Ng4 (with a double attack on h6 and e6) was enough for White to break through.

Jiganchine – Maheux, 2002

image White to move. White gives forced checkmate, I let you figure out this one yourself.

Jiganchine – Erichsen, 2007

image  White to move. 28. Nxh6 gave White a winning advantage, which I later managed to spoil and the game was drawn.

Jiganchine – Poitras, 2008

image White to move. 28. g4 traps the queen – Black has to sacrifice a piece to rescue the royal lady.

Sunday, May 3, 2009

Zugzwang in a rook endgame

White to move
Plaskett – Fuster, 1979

White just played 40. Kg4 and Black resigned. He has to move the king away from b7, and then e8Q wins. If the rook moves, then White starts with a8Q, followed be e8Q.

I found this example a bit entertaining since zugzwang in a rook endgame is quite rare, since a rook is a very mobile piece. It also shows that putting a rook behind passed pawns is often the best strategy.

Hit Counter