Category Archives: Basic (Rating below 1000)

Reductio ad Finis (Latin)

Going straight to the end (approximate translation)

When there are no more dropped pieces for free and those around you are not scared anymore of the Fried Liver, the games grow longer. They test you patience and resilience, especially when you reach the endgame more often. It is the time when you should seriously start looking at the game of chess backwards or in other words to start from the end. Our app level 2 covers the basic endgames: queen versus pawn, rook versus pawn plus king and pawn versus king to understand the concept of the opposition. If you start going this way, it will reveal an important aspect: fewer pieces on the board do not mean a simpler game, but quite the opposite. There are a number of tricks you need to know to be successful and it is not enough to know them just for a month or two after you think you understood them. You have to know them for as long as you will play the game.

Let’s look at a couple of positions my students have played lately:

This was the end of a club game between students of around 800 CFC (Chess Federation of Canada) rating strength. They play decent openings and in the middle game can come up with interesting ideas and plans. The endgame however is what it is… How many mistakes did you see above? Here is a list:

  • In the initial position Black has the material upper hand and a simple 1… Rh1 would have maintained it; it is obvious Black was focused on capturing the g2-pawn without thinking the possible endgame outcome should have guided her against it. Anyone who has studied the basic endgames should realize quickly the exchanges on g2 lead white to a simply won position because of the extra, passed f4-pawn
  • The second important moment comes after 5… b5 White is still winning and all it has to do is to make sure Black runs out of pawn moves on the Queen side; once that happens, the Black king must move away and the f4-pawn march down the board is going to end up with a queen promotion and an easy win.
  • A simple move like 6. b3 … changes the situation on its head; now after 6… cxb3 7. axb3 a5 white cannot win anymore and should observe how the a5 and b5 pawns versus b3 will give Black a passed pawn that must be stopped. We are entering a more complicated endgame situation where the rule of the square governs (our app level 3) and ignoring it always leads to disaster. The move 6. Kf3 … loses on the spot
  • Game over right? Well, not so fast; in order for it to be over, Black must know what to look for (the rule of the square). I switched my attention from it to record another result when both players asked me to come over and told me they agreed to a draw. I was speechless. Our endgame lessons cannot come soon enough!

This one was played by my favorite student C you are already familiar with from previous articles. What do you think of the play on both sides? Are there any moments when you might have played differently? I bet there are. Let’s review a few of them:

  • White is indeed winning at the starting point of the above position
  • The first mistake is 38. b4 … Being up material, the main concern White should have is to take care of the h3-pawn, the only threat capable to give him headaches; obviously he lost track of it
  • The second mistake in a row is 39. Na5 …; again, it makes not sense to look for spectacular combinations white thought he saw (?); his material advantage is going to be lost
    It is hard to explain 43. Ke2 … for someone who can answer right away when asked “In the endgame the kings must go in the center”. This simple king move leads now to a draw instead of a win after 43. Ke4 …
  • Did you read the comment on move 46. Kd3 …? Talk about being confident. Rooks are out of the way and it must be a win, right? No!
  • The last mistake decides the winner: 49… Kb4 was not needed. Based on the rule of the square mentioned above, both kings can easily catch the opposing pawn
  • After 52. f8=Q+ … we reach one of the basic endgames queen versus pawn. White floundered around for another 13 moves, but managed to win it. There is hope though: he remembered this endgame and promised he will review it to play it better next time

Not sure if the above makes a strong enough case for studying endgames as part of your tournament preparation. I honestly hope it does. A player strengthening his game backwards (beginning with the basic endgames) will experience a sudden jump in rating to over 1000 and more. This growth will continue as the study of endgames will go deeper. There is excitement and rewards when going straight to the end!

Valer Eugen Demian

Are You Good at Chess?

This happens to me regularly. I’m on a bus working on tactics puzzles on my phone or I’m in the bookstore browsing a book on endgames, and some stranger will see me and ask: “So…are you good at chess?”

I never know how to answer that question. First, I’m not sure what the person is asking. Do they wonder whether I can beat them, or most people like them, at chess? Or do they wonder whether I can beat top players at chess? Second, I just started playing chess about two years ago, and after three tournaments my provisional rating with the Chess Federation of Canada is 1115. In my experience that’s good enough to beat most casual players most of the time, but it’s still low enough that I’m a below-average club player. To casual players I seem very good, but to tournament players, I look like a complete beginner.

Some will want to dismiss the question “Who is good at chess?” as meaningless or a matter of perspective to which the only possible answer is, “It depends whom you ask.” But I think the question is an important one, and that when it comes up (as it often does on various Internet forums), we should try to give as clear and as justifiable a response as possible, for two reasons.

The first reason is that every beginner wonders whether he is good at chess. We like to be good at the things we work hard at. We stick with those things, while we drop other activities for which we believe we have no talent. Believing that we are good at chess, or that we might one day be good at chess, is an important motivator for us beginners. It would be nice for us to know where the bar lies. Currently in the chess world the only clear benchmarks are the various chess titles obtained by a tiny fraction of all chess players: Expert, Master, Grandmaster, etc. Surely these are all categories that lie far beyond the humbler title “good at chess,” which ought to describe more than the top 2% of players. The absence of consensus in the chess community over what counts as “good”–or is it the snobbish unwillingness to concede that the term might mean anything less than “Master”?–is a motivational stumbling block.

The second reason is that public chess organizations, whether in schools or clubs, need a goal, something they can promise to the students they teach. That goal should not be to produce future Masters—no public program can promise to achieve something that depends on so many factors outside of its control. Yet, once again, in the absence of clear benchmarks below the chess titles, what else can a chess program aim at? In my opinion, the obvious baseline goal of every chess program should be to produce good chess players. So we need consensus over a definition of “good at chess” and the more specific we can be the better, both for individual students and for organizations.  How can we define this term in a way that avoids the problem of perspective?

Here’s my method: The definition of “good at chess” should strike a balance between two competing intuitions. On the one hand, you are good at chess if you can beat the majority of chess players in the world. This intuition will lead to a low bar for “good at chess,” probably somewhere around 1000 in FIDE’s rating system. On the other hand, you are not yet good at chess until you are taken seriously by the game’s Experts. This intuition will require the bar to be higher. What is the Goldilocks rating that captures both intuitions—not too high to be unattainable by most serious players, but not too low to be laughable by the standards of the game’s Experts?

Here’s a suggestion. Let’s say that if your rating is just high enough for us to expect you to beat chess Experts some percentage of the time, then you should be considered “good at chess.” After all, if you can be expected to take a percentage—any percentage, even just 1%—of your games against an Expert, then surely this is a good reason for the Expert to take you seriously. And surely the rest of us should count you as a good chess player.

If you share my intuition that being just good enough to expect to win 1% of the time against a chess Expert is a reasonable criterion for being “good at chess”, then who is good at chess? Well, first we need to know who, exactly, the chess Experts are. In most federations “Expert” is an informal term whose official version is “Candidate Master.” In FIDE, the lowest rating bar for this title is set at 2000. So if we take 2000 to be the lower limit for chess Experts, then who can expect to win 1% of their games against a 2000 player? The answer can be easily calculated using the ratings tables available on FIDE’s website: a person whose rating is 620-735 points below their opponent can expect to win 1% of their games against that opponent.  So…

Here’s the answer you’ve all been waiting for. Who is good at chess? By my reasoning it’s anyone whose FIDE rating is at least in the range of 1265-1380.

This range is both low enough to capture the first intuition and high enough to capture the second. Somebody who is rated above 1265 will crush casual chess players. Such a player won’t exactly strike fear into the 2000 Expert, but he will make the Expert work, and can even expect to win a rare game against him. I cannot imagine any other sport, art, or discipline in which giving the Experts a run for their money wouldn’t be enough to count as “good”!

Now, I’m not suggesting that FIDE institute a new title, “Good at Chess”, for 1265+ players.  We don’t need new official titles, just new ways of presenting the game and its culture to the broader chess-playing public.  On a practical level, I’m recommending a way to talk about the qualitative meanings of ratings and to set minimal goals for chess programs.

I can hear the objections pouring in, and the debate over who is good at chess will inevitably go on. But to conclude, here is the perspective of International Master Jeremy Silman on players whose ratings lie in precisely the range I’ve argued as constituting “good at chess”:

“I remember going to my first tournament at age twelve. It was all quite magical, and as I watched other players’ games in the under 1600 section I recall being amazed at their skills—skills which were far beyond anything I could fully understand at that time. Indeed, my view of 1200-1399 players as being demigods is not that far out of line…If he plays in tournaments, he holds his own against many experienced players. If he competes against non-tournament playing friends, he most likely dominates them” (Jeremy Silman, Complete Endgame Course, Part Three).

If an International Master thinks 1200+ players can be called “demigods,” then I would say it’s safe for the rest of us to call 1265+ players “good”!

Michael Hickson

Short and Sweet (2)

In a recent Thames Valley League match my teammate Chris White managed to win a game against an opponent graded 173 in only ten moves.

Here’s how it went.

1. e4 e5
2. Nf3 Nc6
3. Be2

Chris is playing a reverse Philidor, which doesn’t seem the most likely place to find a ten-mover. Still, you never know.

3… Nf6
4. d3 d5
5. Nbd2 dxe4

This seems rather obliging. Bc5 and Be7 are more challenging options.

6. dxe4 Bg4

Again he might have preferred Bc5 here.

7. c3 Bd6
8. h3 Bh5
9. Nh4

Chris wants to put a knight on f5 (a knight on the rim isn’t dim if it’s on its way somewhere else) but he has to calculate this accurately.

9… Nxe4

A familiar tactic, apparently winning a pawn, but Chris has it all worked out.

10. Nxe4

Now Black, to his credit, realised that he was losing a piece and resigned without waiting to be shown:

10… Bxe2

Or 10… Qxh4 11. Nxd6+

11. Qxe2 Qxh4
12. Bg5

And Black’s queen is trapped.

This is a quiescence error. Black thinks the position after Qxh4 is quiescent (there’s nothing immediate happening) but it isn’t. You have to look at all forcing moves before deciding a position is quiescent and stopping your analysis.

This seemed to be a relatively unusual idea, although I’d remembered seeing this game in Chernev’s 1000 Best Short Games of Chess.

I did a quick search on MegaBase 2018 and found several other examples. The game between Roberto Diaz Garcia (2037) and Leandro Jimenez Jimenez (1974) played in the Championship of the Dominican Republic last May, was almost a repeat of Busvine-Birnberg, the only difference being that White had played O-O rather than Nf1.

A few more examples of the same queen trap. This one’s from a very different opening and has happened more than once. 8. dxe5 would have been OK for White.

Even fairly strong players seem to miss this idea.

The final example features a very different setting, but the queen still gets trapped in the same way.

So there are two tactical ideas you might want to learn. If your opponent plays Nh5 you can sometimes win a pawn using a discovered attack: Nxe5 followed by Qxh5. But you must make sure your queen isn’t going to be trapped as a result. The general idea of trapping a queen in this way is also worth remembering.

Richard James

Why Nf6 is Better Than Ne7 (A Trap)

This article is aimed at beginners only. Like other beginners, when I was in the initial stage of learning chess I was really attracted by chess traps in order to register quick wins.

What I am going to show you is not really a trap because you’re not offering anything. It’s just a wayto punish your opponent for developing a piece on wrong square. In general, while playing king’s pawn openings, …Nf6 is much better than …Ne7 because of the knight’s influence on center. Meanwhile a more critical task of Nf6 is to protect the king. If this is ignored it is usually decisive, and in my database I found 2 games where players rated over 2000 played. Clearly there is a greater chance that beginners will make this mistake, here is the sequence of moves I am talking about:

1. e4 e5 2. Nf3 Nc6 3. Bc4 Bc5 4. d3 d6 5. 0-0 Ne7? 6. Ng5! and White is winning at least a pawn by force.

The game between Vasco Diogo (2220) vs Jose Maria (2051) continued with 6…d5, the only move that might prolong the fight. The game proceeded with the moves 6… d5 7. exd5 Na5 8. Nc3 Nxc4 9. dxc4 Ng6 10. Qh5 Be7 11. f4 Bxg5 12. fxg5 Qe7 13. Ne4 Qb4 14. b3 Bd7 15. Be3 b6 16. Rf2 O-O-O 17. c3 Qa3 18. g3 a5 19. c5 Ne7 20. Bc1 1-0

As we’re discussing this from the beginners’s point of view, they might consider Ng5 bad as they can simply castle, and White is moving the same piece twice in the opening! But this can also result in disaster for Black as follows:

6… 0-0 7. Qh5!

The Greco setup, a deadly way to attack the castled king in the absence of natural defender.


7…Re8 fails to 8. Bxf7+ Kf8 9. Nxh7# or Kh8 then Qxh7#

8. Nxf7 – Rxf7

8…Qe8 leads to typical checkmate 9. Nxh6++ Kh7/h8 10. Nf7+ Kg8 11.Qh8#

9. Qxf7 is winning.

I experienced this pattern many times in Queen’s Pawn Openings too. When White’s bishop is on the b1-h7 diagonal but Black’s knight on g6, and that gives some chances with Ng5 and Qh5!!.

Ashvin Chauhan

Sacrifice for Beginners

“Sacrifice (definition) = a move that gives up material to gain a positional or tactical advantage”

For a long time my first reaction when someone played a sacrifice against me was to feel shivers down my spine. How could I not see this? The sacrifice must be correct, right? The opponent knows what its doing. This of course put me in a defensive position and because of that the sacrifice was already successful. It did not let me look at it with the right frame of mind. How could I stand a chance to play my best against it? I thought about this as I was preparing my new lesson for the current level 2 group of students. We were covering basic mistakes in the opening and punishing those require more often than not one or more sacrifices. I know that for beginners the value of pieces is like the 10 Commandments and because of that reason alone, seeing sacrifices in their games is very rare. This means no chances to punish basic opening mistakes. Let’s take on the challenge to rectify this situation.

We were looking at the following game (also included in level 2, lesson 2 of our chess app):

The theme for this one is called “Cannot play one against all” and it is a hot topic for beginners. After reaching the position above, I could see their puzzled eyes looking at it and could tell they did not understand what was going on. I jumped at the opportunity to introduce them to the topic of sacrifice and did my best to make it as simple as possible.

  • Step 1: We looked at the position and observed Black had an extra pawn and with the last move it was threatening to win either a rook or a queen for the knight
  • Step 2: The first try when facing a sacrifice is to see what happens if you accept it. We played the best line we could think of starting with 6. Kxf2 … The conclusion was that accepting the sacrifice was not a good idea
  • Step 3: We started to look for alternatives and one target we have been talking about (the f7-weak spot) was already attacked by our Bc4; with one attacker and one defender (Ke8), we needed to bring into the action another attacker. This is how the move Rh1-f1 was discovered: it attacked Nf2 and once the knight would move away, we could have a second attacker on f7
  • Step 4: At this moment we had a closer look to see if there was a better move also bringing our rook on f1; O-O became evident within seconds
  • Step 5: Bringing the rook on the f-file meant sacrificing the queen. We have a rule of thumb saying “Sacrifice your Queen only if you can checkmate or get the queen back and then some”
  • Step 6: It was easy to see we could not get our queen back, so the class had the pleasure to look for checkmate

Hope you have figured out the solution by now. Enjoy it below and hope our quest to find it has been instructive!

Valer Eugen Demian

An Effective and Ineffective Pin in the Italian Game (2)

This article aims at beginners only. In my last article I discussed the effectiveness of a very common pin, Bg5 (or …Bg4 by Black) pinning a knight against the queen. In this article we will see that the same pin can very dangerous when your opponent has already castled and can be exploited with simple and effective Nd5 (or …Nd4 by Black). Most of the time this guarantees a very strong attack because it creates weakness around the opponent’s king (usually doubled pawns on the f-file) which are static.

Here is a nice example of this:

Ashvin Chauhan

An Effective and Ineffective Pin in the Italian Game

This article is aimed at beginners who often plays h3 or h6 move to prevent Bg5 or Bg4, pinning their knights against their queen. This is dangerous but not every time. The same pin is dangerous if you have already castled king side and your opponent has some ways to exploit it, for example Bg5 followed by Nd5. Sometime you can use opponent’s Bg5/Bg4 moves to gain tempo by moving your pawn to h6 or h3. And if you’re opponent tries to maintain the pin with Bh4/Bh5 then you can further develop attack with g5/g4. Not only can this break the pin but it can also shut the opponent’s bishop out of the game. Also note that moving pawns won’t weaken your king position because you haven’t committed castle on the king side.

In the following game Mikhail Chigorin demonstrates this aggressive strategy against premature pin. At the same time it also emphasises the importance of studying classic games.

Ashvin Chauhan

Novice Versus Amateur

One genre of chess book I find useful involves games between masters and amateurs. This originated with a series of books by Max Euwe and Walter Meiden in the 1960s, and there have been a few others since. I’ve always thought that you can probably learn more from the play of those rated, say, 300-400 points above you than from the top players. If I see a game played by a 2200 strength player I’ll be able to understand it and think ‘Yes, I could play like that’, while a game played by Carlsen will be over my head.

So perhaps there’s scope for a book for novices which uses games played by amateurs as teaching materials. The games would have to be simple to understand and free from obvious oversights. As it happens, one of the books in the Chess Heroes project, Chess Games for Heroes, will be similar to this, but as it uses the ‘How Good is Your Chess’ principle the games are, of necessity, short.

Here’s a training game I played against one of my pupils which might be useful.

1. e4 d5

I usually play e5, which is what he’s used to, but wanted to see what he’d do when faced with unfamiliar problems. Of course the natural move is to take the pawn, but he noticed I had a threat and chose to defend instead.

2. Nc3 c6

I decided to transpose to a Caro-Kann. How would he cope with that? Rather illogically, perhaps, he now decided to trade pawns.

3. exd5 cxd5
4. d4 Bf5
5. Bf4 Nf6
6. Nf3 e6

Rather careless. I’m trying to develop my king side pieces first, but not considering possible replies. White now has the opportunity to play 7. Bxb8 Rxb8 8. Bb5+ when I’d have to play the uncomfortable Ke7 as Nd7 would lose immediately to Ne5. White has another interesting option in Nb5, which was also possible last move. I’d have to reply with Na6 when the knight on b5 will be safe for some time to come. I really should have played Nc6 by now.

7. Bb5+ Nbd7
8. O-O Bb4

With a positional threat. We haven’t yet spoken much about weak pawns so here’s an opportunity to teach him a lesson. The engines prefer h6 here, to prevent White playing Nh4 and trading off my light squared bishop.

9. a3

Just what I was hoping for. Now I’m going to trade on c3 when White will have backward doubled pawns on the half-open c-file as well as an isolated a-pawn. In an analogous position type where Black has a c-pawn rather than an e-pawn White might be happy with his two bishops, but here I’m hoping to tie him down to defence by targeting the front c-pawn with my major pieces.

9… Bxc3
10. bxc3 Rc8

I could also have played Ne4 here, but I would have had to analyse lines like 10… Ne4 11. Ne5 Nxc3 12. Qh5 Bg6 13. Bxd7+ Qxd7 14. Nxd7 Bxh5 15. Ne5 Ne2+ to justify it.

11. Qd2

He spots my threat and chooses the most natural defence. There were better alternatives, but at novice level it wouldn’t be possible to find them for the right reasons.

The simplest option is 11. Nh4 Bg6 12. Nxg6 hxg6 13. Qf3 Ne4 14. c4.

White can also give up the c-pawn for counterplay:
11. Qb1 Rxc3 12. Qb4 Rxc2 13. Ne5 with more than enough compensation, although Black shouldn’t take the second pawn.
11. Rb1 Rxc3 12. Bd3 Bxd3 13. cxd3 b6 14. Qa4 with compensation for the pawn.

11… O-O

After playing this move I realised that I could have played Ne4 at once, although my move is also strong. Around this point my pupil became stuck, and was unable to find reasonable moves. Understandably so because his position is very difficult to play and he probably doesn’t have any reasonable moves. Some of his moves, including the next one, were my suggestions.

12. Bd3

I’d suggested that he might want to trade off my dangerous bishop. I have no intention of taking it, though, as I don’t want to give him control of c4 and e4. After he’d played the move I realised that Ne4 was very strong.

12… Ne4
13. Bxe4 Bxe4

The wrong recapture. I didn’t want to double my pawns (as I was trying to teach my pupil about the weakness of doubled pawns) or block in my bishop, but dxe4 is excellent as it drives the white knight back to e1.

14. Qe3

If I’d noticed it left the c2 pawn en prise I’d have suggested that he played an alternative. My computer thinks Ne5 is the best try, but Black’s still a lot better.

14… Nb6
15. Nd2 Bxc2

The rest of the game is just a matter of technique for an experienced player. I offered my pupil the chance to switch sides and see if he could win with Black at several points but, to his credit, he preferred to play it out and see how I beat him.

16. Rac1 Bg6
17. Bg5 Qc7
18. Bf4 Qc6
19. Rfd1 Nc4
20. Nxc4 Qxc4
21. Bd6 Rfd8
22. Be7 Rd7
23. Bg5 b6
24. Rd2 Qb3
25. Bf4 Qxa3

A second pawn falls.

26. Rdd1 a5
27. Re1 Rc4
28. Qd2 Rd8
29. Re3 Rdc8
30. h3 b5
31. g3 b4

The third weak pawn falls. White finds a good tactical try but I manage to calculate the win.

32. Bd6 bxc3
33. Bxa3 cxd2
34. Rd1 Rc1
35. Bxc1 Rxc1
36. Rb3

Another good tactical try, threatening mate but allowing an amusing finish. My pupil shows admirable tactical imagination as well as tenacity which will stand him in good stead in the future.

36… Rxd1+
37. Kg2 Rg1+
38. Kh2 Rh1+
39. Kg2 Be4+
40. f3 Bxf3+
41. Kf2 g6
42. Rb8+ Kg7
43. Kxf3 d1=Q+
44. Kf4 Qxd4+
45. Kf3 Rf1+
46. Ke2 Rf2+
47. Ke1 Qd2#

I guess you might find this a useful example of how an amateur can beat a novice by creating weak pawns, attacking them and winning them. This is not the only training game of this nature I’ve played recently so I guess learning about pawn weaknesses, how to avoid them, how to create them and how to exploit them, is a useful lesson for novices who want to become amateurs. There may be more on this topic in Chess Openings for Heroes.

Richard James

King and Rook Checkmates

What I often do when playing young children who are lacking in confidence is head for an overwhelmingly won ending and turn the board round to let them win.

I was playing a boy at a school chess club the other day and duly turned the board round when I had a rook and lots of pawns against a few pawns. On swapping the positions my king soon captured my opponent’s pawns and, when I captured his last pawn we reached this position, with Black to move:

I explained to my opponent that he could mate me in two moves by playing a king move, and, more by luck than judgement, he was able to find it.

At the end of the club at this school I usually do a quick 10-minute lesson on the demo board for children who have finished their tournament games. I set up this position and asked if the students could find the mate in 2 (being careful to explain exactly what a mate in 2 was). There was one boy, the strongest player in the club, who had just missed out on qualifying for the Delancey UK Chess Challenge Gigafinals at the weekend, had some idea how to go about trying to work out the answer, but the rest of the class were unable to do anything other than making wild guesses.

I then changed the position slightly:

Again, they had the same difficulty trying to find the mate in 2 for Black. When they eventually found the answer I made another slight change:

When our strongest player found Rc6 I asked the whole class how many different answers there were to this question. At first they just made random guesses (2? 3? 22?) and I told them it wasn’t a guessing game: they had to work it out. Finally, someone found Re6 and it dawned on them that there were in fact five ways for Black to force mate in 2 moves in this position.

I would have liked, if I’d have had time, to have rotated the positions by 90% and 180% to see whether they would realise the answer was, in effect, the same, or whether they would go back and try to solve the puzzles from first principles. But it was the end of the session and the parents were waiting outside to collect their children. Another time, maybe.

The teacher who was in the room with me at the time, not a chess player herself, told me the lesson was very hard for them, and was impressed with their answers as well as with their enthusiasm and concentration during the lesson.

For chess players these examples are very simple and very basic. We know that, in order to play even reasonably good chess, we need to think “I go there, you go there, I go there”, but this type of thinking, even when “you go there” elicits only one possibility, is very hard and very unnatural for most young children, especially if they are not used to playing simple strategy games at home.

I suspect it’s because this sort of exercise introduces children to a totally new thinking skill that scholastic chess in the classroom might have a short-term effect in ‘making kids smarter’.

I also suspect that teaching kids how the pieces move in half an hour and putting them into a competitive environment will have no effect at all in ‘making kids smarter’. A ten-minute lesson of this nature after they’ve finished their tournament game will also have little effect unless the thinking skills are reinforced. Otherwise most of them will have forgotten it by the following week.

Richard James

Chess Endings for Heroes

I’m currently writing a series of books for children (or adults) who have learnt the moves and would like to reach a good enough standard to play adult competitive chess successfully.

Chess Endings for Heroes will give readers the knowledge and skills they require to reach this level.

You’ll certainly need to be quick and efficient at mating with king and queen against king, and with king and rook against king. Learning how to mate with two bishops and with bishop and knight is not yet necessary as they are much less common but will be covered in brief more for the sake of completion than anything else. At this level, many students will also find the bishop and knight checkmate difficult to grasp. If you want to get beyond this level, though, you will need to know it. The world is very different now from when I was learning chess more than half a century ago, when most league games and some tournament games would be adjudicated at move 30. These days, if you’re at all serious about playing at a high level, you need to know endings like bishop and knight against king, and rook and bishop against rook (and I write this having just been directed to a game in which a 2015 rated player spent more than 75 moves making less than no progress with bishop and knight against king, despite having started with the opposing king on the edge of the board).

Beyond this, what you need to know more than anything else at this level is pawn endings. When you start to learn chess one of the first things you learn is the value of the pieces. We teach about favourable, equal and unfavourable exchanges, so children understandably tend to think, for example, that whenever you trade rooks it’s an equal exchange – 5 points for 5 points. But of course, we, as experienced players, know that very few exchanges genuinely are equal. The point count is very much like stabilisers when you’re learning to ride a bike or water wings when you’re learning to swim: very useful for beginners but once you’re fluent it’s more of a hindrance than a help.

At this level, one of the most frequent mistakes is to convert a probable draw into a loss by trading your last piece into a lost pawn ending. As pawn endings are, by and large, the easiest to win, if you’re a pawn down you should do your best to avoid trading your other pieces. If you’re ahead on material trade pieces but not pawns, if you’re behind on material trade pawns but not pieces.

So we start with king and pawn endings. First, you’ll need to know the result of any position with king and pawn against king. You’ll then need to know the how to win simple positions with an extra pawn: create a passed pawn and, if you can’t promote it, rush your king over to capture some pawns on the other side of the board. With pawns on only one side of the board you’ll need to be a lot more subtle, and have a fairly sophisticated understanding of the opposition.

We then look at other common ideas in pawn endings: the outside passed pawn, the concept of the spare move, the sacrificial breakthrough to create a passed pawn, calculating races where both players are aiming to promote their passed pawns and so on. The lessons are reinforced by quizzes based on games from the RJCC database.

Looking at pawn races leads us onto the important ending of queen against pawn on the seventh rank, which you’ll need to know at this point. This in turn brings us to queen endings: all you need to know at this point is a few basic principles.

At higher levels rook endings are the most important type of endgame. At this level, you’ll need to know the Lucena and Philidor positions along with a few basic principles, such as keeping your pieces active and placing rooks behind passed pawns. You’ll probably also need to know a bit about rook versus pawn.

Positions where you’re a minor piece ahead in the ending can prove tricky at this level. You can’t just trade off all the pawns and mate so you have to win some enemy pawns first. One technique is to target pawns that can’t be defended by friendly pawns (backward or isolated) and attack them with both your minor piece and your king. Another technique is to play for Zugzwang and force the enemy king back so that your king can infiltrate. We’ll also look at bishops against knights, and discuss good and bad bishops. The ending of bishop and wrong rook’s pawn against king is essential knowledge.

And that, really, is all you need to know to reach say 100 ECF or 1500 Elo. Chess Endings for Heroes, coming, with any luck, sometime fairly soon.

Richard James