100 Endgame Patterns You Must Know: Recognize Key Moves & Motifs and Avoid Typical Errors

Introduction

The rationale for this book

The urge to write this book originated in all the years that I have been working as a trainer, and more particularly in the huge number of games I have observed and analysed, played by developing players – not only my students, but often also their opponents, or anyone else whose games have crossed my path in my investigations. The specific locations where I have observed and analysed more games each year have been the Spanish Junior Championships, held on the last nine occasions in Salobreña (Granada), and the European or World Junior Championships. Examining these games, I discovered over and over again that the mistakes that are made can be grouped together and are often repeated. I thought about a lot of things that I had not considered before regarding the reasons behind the most common mistakes, and I became more and more convinced about the theory of patterns, because I seemed to be discovering that the cause of many mistakes was the lack of familiarity with one pattern or another.

Of course, these mistakes can occur at any stage of the game, and in all cases they are worth attention, but I decided to focus in the first place on endgame positions, first theoretical endings and then practical ones, and I set to work compiling interesting examples.

From the start, I wondered whether these mistakes were being made because they were patterns which were not known, or which had been studied using unimpressive examples, although I believe that in the majority of cases, the answer lies in something as trivial and mundane as carelessness.

The aim of this book is to present, with good examples and, therefore, in a clear fashion, those situations which I consider to be useful patterns in positions with few pieces, the study of which should allow us to eliminate mistakes which we can consider systematic.

This book is not exactly a continuation of my earlier book 100 Endgames You Must Know. It would be more accurate to say that they complement each other, since 100 Endgames You Must Know concentrates on theoretical endgames, while this book deals precisely with the stage of the game that precedes the appearance of the theoretical endgames.

Beginning with one book or the other, or alternating between them, may be a matter of experience or taste, but it is probably more systematic to start with the study of theoretical endgames.

For the student who began with 100 Endgames You Must Know, this new book is a further step in his immersion in the world of endgames. In order to take this step it is most advisable, and in some cases necessary, to be familiar with the theoretical endgames, in order to analyse, and consequently to fully understand, the basic-level practical endgames, which are the ones presented in this book.

In theoretical endings, there already appear some of the patterns which subsequently appear in positions with more pawns, which will serve as a useful introduction, whereas other patterns are completely new and they would make no sense in positions with only one or two pawns.

Learning endgame theory and learning typical patterns can also be carried out simultaneously, as I do not think we should discount the role of serendipity in chess progress. The performance-enhancing aspect of merely studying positions is always a result of the increase in interest, sometimes even passion, which is aroused when a topic is approached in circumstances other than the purely systematic ones, such as for example its resemblance to an endgame which has just been completed, or which has just been seen in another game, and which has given rise to a ‘significant increase’ in our level of curiosity.

Defining the endgame

For ever and ever, we have heard that there is a stage of the game called the endgame, that it is the third stage, and that it follows the opening and the middlegame. This stage has characteristics which are sufficiently differentiated to merit this division, both from the point of view of the competitive struggle and from that of analytical investigation. However it has never been clearly pinned down by a definition, which has led to a range of interpretations, such as for example describing positions with several major pieces as ‘the fourth stage of the game’.

If we search on the Internet for a rough definition of the endgame, which many amateur players may well do, we shall perhaps find something similar to the following: ‘The endgame is the third stage of the game, in which there are few pieces left on the board and the final outcome is imminent.’ The idea that the final outcome is imminent might amuse us, because some endgames go on for ever, but the real problem of this attempt at a definition, and of other attempts, is how many pieces constitute ‘a few pieces’? Some writers sidestep this definition by material and are of the opinion that the endgame is the stage of the game when there is no longer an obvious danger of mate. Although there are some endgame positions where one plays for mate (see Pattern 86), this conceptual division is very good, because the characteristics of the endgame, which in the first chapter we shall call ‘Distinctive facts’, are based precisely on the fact that mating plans are infrequent. However, this division does not allow us to establish a classification of endings according to the material remaining on the board, since this makes it depend on a circumstance which is separate from such a classification. And of course, the classification based on material, although it may be rather limiting, makes matters regarding investigation and learning much easier.

It is a fact that positions which are usually called endgames coincide with those where there is little danger of mate. Nonetheless, in some cases positions with quite a lot of pieces are spoken of as endgames, simply because the queen has been exchanged, which is clearly incorrect. I think that a reasonable definition would be to consider as endgames those positions where the player with more material has a maximum of two pieces, provided that one of them is not the queen. This would rule out, among others, positions with queens and bishops, which we can consider borderline and which in many places are studied as endgames; and of course many people will not agree, but it comes very close to the general sense of what an endgame is, and tries to confine it to a classification by material, which for some questions is useful and almost necessary.

I propose therefore to consider as endgames those positions where the stronger side has a maximum of two pieces, without counting the king and the pawns, and provided that the queen is not one of them. However, in this book I shall look only at positions where the stronger side has one piece. The first reason is that the idea of patterns lends itself much better to positions with one piece, because the patterns arise from the properties and limitations inherent in the movement of each piece. The second reason, equally decisive, is that to include patterns found in two-piece endgames would require much more research and more space. Patterns with two pieces introduce many new elements and are also very interesting; I do not know whether I shall return to this at some time.

Some thoughts on the system of patterns

At all stages of the game and in all its aspects, not only in endgames, but also in tactics and strategy, mastery is achieved through accumulating knowledge of patterns.

Experts’ skill in rapidly understanding the keys to a problem, which is sometimes called intuition, is not a magical quality; it is the result of years of investigation and experience which always leads to the same scenario: familiarity with a large number of patterns.

Some theories talk of 50,000 or 100,000 patterns, accumulated through 5,000 or 10,000 hours of study. The exact number is not important; it is even possible (I would say probable) that different people store them in different ways. What matters to us is the method of discovering and using patterns, and ascertaining which ones are really common at the stage which we are studying.

It is easy to think that patterns merely guide us towards the idea to be followed. Even more so when we tend to read (often with reference to endgame positions): ‘now it’s all a matter of calculation and theoretical knowledge is of no use’.

As a matter of fact, I believe that is not the case, and that stored patterns are just as important in calculating variations as in establishing little plans, because they guide our selection of candidate moves at each moment.

So it is a question of improving intuition by analysing positions, not in a random way though, but focusing on representative positions in which over and over again we can find interesting ideas, which recur in different variations and subsequently in different positions.

At present, many books are based on (or rely on) this idea of patterns, and this will be one of them. At the risk of repeating myself, it is a question of choosing the best examples, the clearest and the most correct, and in this way making the pattern ‘unforgettable’ (in the literal sense of the word). Every time I see a better example (and this judgment is inevitably subjective), I replace the old example, although I understand that this way of working is never-ending and that there must be a more efficient way.

Many patterns are discovered during play, and for the observant and self-critical player these are the ones which stick more firmly in the memory. However, the patterns that we encounter while playing are not all there are, and sometimes they are unclear and require a certain amount of analytical work, in order for us to identify them and understand them.

For this reason it becomes necessary to take note of other players’ games and to analyse them with the same interest as we do our own. And therefore one aspect of a trainer’s work, perhaps the most important aspect, is to recognise patterns and to find the best examples in order to present them; a pattern introduced by means of an excellent example is more likely to be assimilated and remembered.

Let us now reflect on these ideas with some practical examples.

The following game by Bobby Fischer created a type of combination which occurs from time to time, and it has been very popular since then. Perhaps without it many other combinations would not have been produced.

Bobby Fischer

Pal Benko

New York ch-USA 1963 (10)

In this position, Benko (one of the best players in the world at the time) was expecting 19.e5, which he planned to answer with 19...f5, and the game would continue. But Fischer now played one of the most famous moves of his career:

19.♖f6!!

Benko could have resigned here, but he tried a few more moves:

19...♔g8 20.e5 h6 21.♘e2! 1-0

But this finish by the Cuban player Otero is even more elegant:

Jorge Marcos Gomez Sanchez 2430

Diasmany Otero Acosta 2438

Santa Clara 2017 (4)

Of course White, who had just played 12.♕e1, was also expecting 12... ♕xh4, which he would have answered with 13.f4 (like Benko), and the game would continue.

12...♗f3!!

And here too White tried to resist a bit longer. Resigning on the twelfth move, after such a brilliant move, is a rather difficult step to take.

13.♗c1 ♕xh4 14.h3 ♘f4 15.♗xf3 ♕xh3 0-1

And it will be mate in two in any case. But of course it is almost certain that Diasmany Otero was familiar with Fischer’s game and it is even possible that it did not take him very long to find the move.

And now, a couple of the author’s own experiences in the endgame, with very contrasting outcomes.

Roberto Garcia Lafuente

Jesus de la Villa

Barcelona 1975

I well remember that on that day I was rushing, for reasons unconnected with chess, essentially down to my lack of experience, since one should never rush. In the game, everything had been going swimmingly and now all that was needed was to bring home the point. White’s rook is completely immobilised in front of the imposing pawn on the second rank. It was very simple; all it needed was for me to bring the king across to the queenside.

62...♔h3 63.♔g1!

My opponent plays hard to get, defending the pawn.

63...f2+ 64.♔f1 ♔xh2??

White has no pawns and his king can hardly move, but at the time I had not taken in this clue.

65.♖xa2! ♖f3 66.♖a8

Draw.

And now, the positive experience:

Roman Bordell

Jesus de la Villa

Sitges 1990

The game is analysed in Pattern 77, Vancura. Here we are just going to reflect on the knowledge of patterns. My opponent thought for a long time and after much strolling up and down I returned to the board and saw that he had moved:

55.♖b3!?

I had not foreseen this move, which at first sight looks pointless. By chance, I was already familiar with the Vancura position and seemingly it was still fresh in my mind. I immediately guessed his ingenious idea and quickly neutralised it with:

55...♔d8!

There were other winning moves, although not the impatient 55...f3? 56.gxf3 gxf3 57.♖d3 ♔d8 58.♖d2

analysis diagram

and both Black’s passed pawns are held up by the white rook – a brilliant version of the Vancura idea.

56.a5 f3 57.gxf3 gxh3 58.a6 h2 59.a7 ♖a1 60.♖xb2 h1♕ 0-1

I wanted to use my own experience as an example, because I am much more certain that that is what I was thinking at the time, but I could have chosen games by other players as an example. Without going any further, the reader can now check the final example of Pattern 12, the Staunton-Williams game, and he will suspect as I do that Staunton was not familiar with the pattern of diagonal opposition.

So, knowing the pattern is essential. Sometimes you will be able to find the right idea without it, but on many more occasions you will not manage it. Some patterns are very well known (for example, players quickly learn that two pawns on the sixth rank beat a rook, if no other piece intervenes); others are less well known, even some very common ones, just because we have not come across them with an inspirational example. After the chapter on the distinctive features of the endgame, we shall begin to study the 100 patterns which I have chosen because I consider them to be the most important.

The choice of patterns and their presentation

Well then: which patterns should we choose? Which patterns should we study? How many patterns are there?

These questions have an answer, although it might not be a categorical one. As regards which ones to study, that is the easiest: all the ones you come across and which you can identify as recognisable in different positions.

The job of gathering material and deciding which to present has understandably been much harder than what was required for the book on theoretical endings. Some have been left out, while others needed more than one section in order to explain all their aspects (or at least the most important aspects, from my point of view). One hundred is neither such a large number that it can encompass all the ideas that exist in endgames, nor such a low one that it leaves most of them out. Finally, I think it is sufficiently flexible for the chosen field (endgames with one piece, as I shall explain at a later stage) and it allows the collection of ‘almost all the important material’.

Having finished the work, I feel that I have been able to include all the material I had in mind, and I think that the reader, after studying it, will be much better equipped for playing simple positions. In 100 Endgames You Must Know, there were already some situations which can be considered to be patterns; some of these I have now left out of this selection, because I do not think it would be possible to add much to what is presented there, but other patterns will appear and some of them more than once, depending on the pieces involved.

Amongst the patterns studied, some are basically tactical, others more strategic; some are very concrete and others more abstract; but I think they all have one distinguishing feature: they are easily recognisable when they appear in a practical game. Each section will present one pattern, with a few examples. I am convinced that one excellent example can be sufficient, provided it is able to make a big enough impact. But those perfect examples do not always exist, or else I have not been able to find them. For that reason, there are always at least two examples; at least one of these tries to be very simple, in order to introduce the idea, and then there follow a few more complicated ones, which can reinforce the idea, or introduce variations on the theme.

Nonetheless, in practice it is unusual for an endgame to be based on just one idea; perhaps one theme stands out more, but there are many more in the background. Inevitably in most of the examples more than one pattern will appear, although in each case we shall highlight the pattern featured in that section.

For a pattern to be well understood, it is preferable for the analysis not to be too complicated. Of course it is useful to be aware of the truth about a position, and sometimes that necessitates a very complex analysis, in which it is difficult to separate out the simple elements underpinning it. Even so, I have tried to give every position a clear evaluation, analysing some of them more deeply. But in a few patterns (especially numbers 75 and 76) I have decided not to pursue some variations to exhaustion.

In some cases, within one pattern another one will appear, which has not yet been studied. This is also almost impossible to avoid and it is what often happens in practice: we find ourselves faced with patterns we do not yet know. The curious reader can jump forward at this point and study that pattern, if he so wishes. What is definitely recommended is to go over the patterns for at least a second time, at some point after having finished the book.

As for the order of the chapters, I have decided to arrange them in increasing order of strength of the material: beginning with pawns, next pieces against pawns, then minor pieces and finally major pieces. Somehow it attracted me to see how patterns more typical of the middlegame were appearing, and how the part played by the king was declining, an aspect I hope readers will also enjoy.

Finally, I want to comment on another important decision. In a few cases, some patterns are studied in only one chapter, i.e. in one type of endgame, although they are not exclusive to that endgame; for example the highway theme, studied under bishops of the same colour, could also appear in bishop vs knight and in rook vs bishop. I could have repeated it in each of these chapters, with different examples, but I chose not to do so, because I felt it added little to the topic. With other patterns I did decide to repeat the theme, but only when I considered that it had different connotations; this was another subjective decision, which may not always have been the best one. One example of a theme which I could repeat is the great detour in knight vs bishop endings, but it seems to me that the concept is exactly the same. In contrast, I have repeated the stalemate theme in both rook endings and queen endings, because typical and very different constructions appear.

Selection of material

I shall move on now to make some comments on the selection of material, not only to explain or justify the system I have followed in putting this book together, but also to discuss the usefulness of some choices and ultimately to convince readers that it is possible to learn something, not only from the games of famous players, but from any position, and to encourage them to look for lessons in their own games, or in those of players of the same level.

First of all, there is the decision between recent material or classical material. Naturally I believe it is better to present recent material, because the classical material has already been published, sometimes on many occasions, in other books. Furthermore, presenting recent material reinforces the idea that patterns are something ‘live’, which can arise in ‘real’ games. However, there are a number of classical examples which I have not been able to replace with recent ones that are also better. Perhaps this is influenced by the fact that these examples are the ones that I have always identified with the basic pattern, and therefore it is more difficult for me to find substitutes; in any case, all of them are analysed with the ‘vigilance’ of the latest analysis engines.

The second big decision is between choosing only high-level material, or including material from amateur games. I believe that it is best to choose both kinds of examples, and this is what I have done with almost all the patterns. This book is not about considering the merit or usefulness of a game extract perfectly played by one of the players, but about incorporating new patterns in our repertoire, or acquiring a better understanding of the ones we already know. In this regard, error is something fundamental and the ‘frequent error’, in other words the one that often occurs in certain types of position, is hugely instructive. For that reason, I think that analysing amateurs’ games allows us to have a better appreciation of the eminently practical aspect of this way of studying chess, and if these games are correctly analysed (as I hope is the case) they allow us to see what were the correct moves at each point. We might say that ‘the errors we have made are not important, what matters is knowing which they were’.

Another decision is between positions from real games or composed positions. As I have already pointed out in my 100 Endgames You Must Know WORKBOOK, I prefer to limit composed studies to the minimum possible, not because I am unaware of their beauty or their ability to present an idea brilliantly, but because I think that in some way studying a pattern is more justified if it arises in practice, and if it occurs frequently there should be good examples from real games; but here again I have not always been able to find them. So the result is that I have included just a few studies, both in the descriptive part and in the exercises. Regarding composed studies, I favour the simple ones, those which illustrate a single idea. The more complex ones serve another purpose.

Evaluating positions and symbols of evaluation

For years now, punctuation marks and evaluation symbols have been used to be able to convey the correctness of the course of a game and its trend in favour of one side or the other, without our having constantly to get bogged down in long explanations. Although this ‘system of symbols’ was invented and developed at a time when analysis engines did not exist, and although it is essentially imprecise (which is most evident in the evaluation of endgames), it is still the system that is best adapted to human thought. I suspect that we are seeing it in its last throes and that it will soon be abandoned and replaced by something else, but for the moment I am not going to ignore it.

I prefer to dedicate a few lines to explaining my own criteria in the use of symbols, instead of limiting it to a short section without words. I have often used some traditional symbols from the Chess Informant, especially the ones used for a decisive advantage (+– for White and –+ for Black), as well as the symbol for equality, =.

I haven’t used the symbols for a slight advantage ( or ), because I think that they have little meaning in an endgame; the ideal is to be able to arrive at a definitive evaluation. It is therefore only in variations which are not main ones that I have allowed myself to abstain from an exhaustive analysis and instead make an evaluation that we could call imprecise or approximate.

As for punctuation marks (!, ?, etc.), I think that the only important one is the question mark (?) which should indicate that this is a move which endangers the correct result of the position. In second place would be the exclamation mark (!) which objectively should indicate the only winning move (or one of the few), but which I have used sometimes in the much more subjective sense of the middlegame, to indicate a move that is good but not obvious. I have used the ?! symbol to indicate a move that does not endanger the result but makes the task more difficult, which is a subjective evaluation. And I would say that the other symbols are not important in this type of book, although I have sometimes ‘punished’ a move with ??, when the error is very blatant and perhaps caught me in a bad mood. And a few times I have rewarded moves that have impressed me with !!, although this is always a subjective judgment.

How to study endgames

In recent years I have frequently been asked about how to study endgames. Of course, this question could be asked about any aspect of chess and the answers will often have elements in common.

In any case I shall try to suggest some useful approaches, consistent with the focus of this book and in which I shall reiterate some of the ideas already outlined.

One prerequisite to improving endgame play is an attitude of constant curiosity. This is useful for everything, but as the study of endgames has a reputation of being dry, it is a little more difficult to achieve it. Curiosity must be applied to the study of any book or game. A player should be constantly prepared to ask himself all kinds of questions about what will happen or what could happen if there should be a slight variation from the game continuation. Approaching our own games in this way is fundamental, although it seems easier; we could say that if we have no curiosity about what should have happened in one of our endgames, then our progress will be slow at best, too slow to be of use.

We should extend this curiosity to any position we come across along the way, especially to rapid games. Some of my students look at me with horror when I talk about this: ‘do we really have to study our quick-play games as well?’ But we must not be frightened by the mountain of work which awaits us. We do not have to study our rapid games; we have to study the interesting positions that arise in our rapid games, which naturally are not that many, and we should do so because we have a greater ‘link of curiosity’ with them than with others. Every time we come across something we do not understand, whether it is a theoretical endgame or an interesting pattern situation, if we work at deciphering it, very soon we shall have a huge stock of knowledge, which will turn into resources that we shall be able to exploit.

As for the order, studying theoretical endgames first is the most logical, because otherwise unanswered questions will endlessly arise in other endgames. The most common are absolutely essential, then the rest can be added more slowly, and at the same time as practical patterns are being studied. And after they have read this book, I believe that all readers will be prepared to recognise (or to think they recognise) new patterns in their games, if they did not already do so before, as well as using and perfecting the ones they have already studied, of course.

How often in our games does a theoretical ending arise and how often do we see a typical pattern in an ending with one or two pieces? It depends on many things, but one of the most important is how well we know them; the more of them we know, the less often they arise for us. How can that be? Well, very easily: as both players become acquainted with the theoretical result of a position, it is usual for one of them to avoid it, if there are alternatives. The same thing will happen with typical patterns, but as they are much less concrete, and as they require a higher level of knowledge, they will be avoided far fewer times and therefore they will arise much more often. Try playing a few dozen games against beginners and you will certainly manage to profit from endgame knowledge which you will not be able to apply in games against players of your own level. How many games by elite players do you see with typical well-known mating combinations? Relatively few, as both players know them. And this search for complexity extends also to strategy and to the study of openings.

Over the last few months I have put this question to myself regarding this book’s theme of patterns, and I decided upon two areas of material to study: games from the tournaments which I was following on an almost daily basis and my own fast games online (it should be understood that this book was written during ‘lockdown’, although it is not that I am very active now in any case). Would those patterns arise in these two sets of test material? They did so to a greater extent than I was expecting: some of the games from this period have their place in the book and, as regards my own fast games, I would say that of every twenty games, at least one would be relevant to one of the patterns (even today, the very day when I am writing these words), although of course I will not be so boring as to present them all.

The following extract is from a game which was played on the day I was writing this (and the whole game can be found online).

Algernoon 2428

Ngazio2000 2441

Lichess.org blitz 2020

Black, with an impressive pair of passed pawns, could have suspected the danger of the creation of a high-quality majority by White (see Pattern 3). He could have prevented it with 35...a6! and if 36.b6 a5!–+. Instead he played 35...♔c7? and after 36.a5! the high-quality majority appears and a draw is inevitable: ½-½.

So the best advice I can give is to analyse everything and try to draw meaningful conclusions, in order to be able to apply them in the future.

The ability to see interesting ideas is developed by playing and by solving exercises. Do not waste any collection of puzzles you come across by looking at the solution straight away. That would be like trying to improve our tennis serves and strokes by watching videos, but not putting them to the test until we get to the decisive game. Each exercise solved is a source of satisfaction, and each exercise analysed in depth is a greater source of learning.

CHAPTER 1

Pawn endings

As we have already outlined in the general introduction, we are starting with positions with less material, in this case pawn endings. It is natural to start with these, because other endgames can turn into pawn endings at some point, whereas although pawn endings can sometimes turn into queen endings, they almost never turn into other types of ending.

In pawn endings, with practice we quickly come across extremely clear patterns, some of them strategic in kind, like the distant passed pawn, and others which are pure piece configurations, like the mate with two pawns on the seventh rank.

Many of these patterns give us a foretaste of ones we shall see later with more pieces. For example, the king which cannot enter (Pattern 3) is the forerunner of fortresses, which become more and more impressive in later chapters and really begin to resemble medieval castles, when one of the players has the queen.

Pawn endings occur much more frequently in the games of very young players, as they have a natural tendency to exchange pieces, without knowing the theoretical result of the positions they are heading towards. That is why it is essential for them to know and master all these patterns, before progressing to the other types of ending. A developing player who does not know pawn endings will be severely punished for it in the form of points lost.

Finally, it is important to remember that practical pawn endings are an excellent source of training material for learning to calculate, and we shall quickly discover that it is much more difficult to calculate well if we do not know the patterns.

PATTERN 1 The distant passed pawn

The distant passed pawn (also known as outside passed pawn) is important in various kinds of endgames, but above all in pawn endings. This is so for three reasons: its frequency, its strong influence on the outcome, and the ease with which it can be exploited. While it is just an advantage in other endgames (and not in all of them), in pawn endings it is usual for the distant passed pawn to win the game; it can even win with a disadvantage in the number of pawns. The reason is very easy to understand: the king is the only piece that can deal with it, and to do so he has to travel a long distance. As a consequence of moving his king so far away, the player loses all his pawns on the other wing.

Let us start with a series of three very similar schematic positions:

Series: Distant passed pawn

Position 1

Position 2

Position 3

In the first position we encounter two themes. Black (who is a pawn down) wins with a two-step mechanism: first of all he converts his only queenside pawn into a pawn that holds two; then he exploits the advantage of his distant passed pawn to be the first to reach the queenside and capture the pawns, which he achieves by a single tempo:

1...b4! 2.♔g2 ♔f5 3.♔f3 Now that White’s two queenside pawns have been neutralised, Black mobilises his distant passed pawn: 3...h5! 4.♔g3 Now the owner of the distant passed pawn has to calculate in order to exploit the advantage. Normally, exchanging the pawns wins (except in those cases where the stronger side has only a rook’s pawn left on the other wing). 4...h4+ 5.♔xh4 ♔xf4 This is the interesting position to observe. As a result of the exchange of the two passed pawns (which the side with the most distant pawn can always force), the black king ends up nearer the white pawns on the queenside and is able to capture them: 6.♔h5 ♔e3 7.♔g5 ♔d3 8.♔f5 ♔c3 9.♔e5 ♔b2 10.♔d4 ♔xa2 11.♔c4 ♔a3 Capturing the second pawn and winning. Notice that the black king has arrived first by a single tempo, so one should not expect to win automatically and it is normally appropriate to verify it through calculation.

In the second position, it is White who wins, even without an extra pawn, because now it is White who has the distant passed pawn: 1...b4 With 1...♔f5 Black can try to prevent the exchange of pawns, but he will not succeed: 2.b4 ♔e5 (2...♔g6 3.♔f4+–; 2...♔e4 3.h5 f5 4.h6 f4+ 5.♔f2+–) 3.h5! ♔f5 4.♔h4!. White definitely needs to be careful to make sure that the pawns are exchanged and that he doesn’t just lose his distant passed pawn. But with this move White wins: 4...♔e6 5.♔g4 ♔f7 6.♔f5 ♔g7 7.h6+ ♔xh6 8.♔xf6+–. 2.♔g4 f5+ 3.♔f4 ♔h5 4.♔xf5 ♔xh4 Now the white king is the one nearer to the queenside. 5.♔e4 ♔g5 6.♔d4 ♔f6 7.♔c4 ♔e6 8.♔xb4 White captures the pawn and now after 8...♔d6 9.♔b5!+– he occupies one of the critical squares for promoting the pawn.

Finally, in the third position, where the only difference from the second one is that the queenside pawns have been moved to the rook’s file, White does not win, because although he reaches the queenside first and captures the a-pawn, this results in a drawn ending, as can easily be verified. So it is worth noting that if there is only a rook’s pawn left on the other wing, the distant passed pawn might not be enough to win.

These positions have been schematic, but in practice the winning mechanism of the distant passed pawn has been applied on innumerable occasions, and at all levels. We shall present three very famous examples.

The first shows the mechanism in its most basic form:

Bobby Fischer

Bent Larsen

Denver 1971 (m/5)

39.♗c3!

White forces the transition to a pawn ending, which is winning, due to the distant passed pawn.

39...♗xc3

Black has no choice and continues to play through inertia. If 39...♗a3 then 40.a5 and there is now no way to stop the pawn without losing the bishop: 40...♗c5 41.♗d4+–.

40.♔xc3 ♔e7

The black king has entered the square of the a-pawn but in order to capture it he will have to leave all the kingside pawns to their fate.

41.♔d4 ♔d6 42.a5 f6 43.a6 ♔c6 44.a7 ♔b7 45.♔d5 h4 46.♔e6 1-0

In the following example, the loser of the previous ending is the one who exploits the theme.

Bent Larsen

Svetozar Gligoric

Moscow ol 1956 (5)

31.♔e3

White’s plan is quite simple. First he centralises the king, to prevent any surprises and to tie the black king to the defence of the isolated pawn on e5. Next he advances his majority on the queenside to transform it into a distant passed pawn. Then he advances this pawn and finally exploits the (forced) absence of the black king to capture all Black’s kingside pawns. Although some care is required, the plan works like clockwork.

31...♔d6 32.♔e4

The first stage: White ties the black king to the defence of his weak pawn. It is understandable that with his next move Black tries to disrupt the natural course of events:

32...b4!?

32...♔e6?! simply facilitates the execution of the plan: 33.c3 ♔d6 34.b3 ♔e6 35.h4 h5 36.g3 g6 37.c4 bxc4?! (with the exchange of pawns, White’s queenside pawn finally becomes a distant passed pawn. 37...b4 prevents the creation of a distant passed pawn, but the pawn on b4 is easily captured, e.g. 38.c5 ♔f6 39.c6 ♔e6 40.c7 ♔d7 41.♔xe5 ♔xc7 42.♔d5 ♔b6 43.♔c4 ♔a5 44.♔c5+–) 38.bxc4 ♔d6 39.c5+ ♔xc5 40.♔xe5 and White captures both pawns.

33.c3 b3!?

This situation is interesting. The presence of the pawns on b2 and b3 means that the c3-pawn is not a ‘classic’ distant passed pawn, because the black b-pawn is very close to the promotion square after the c-pawn moves and is captured. The problem for Black now is that the white king is better placed and the pawn on b3 is very exposed. By manoeuvring correctly White will always be able to capture it.

34.c4 g6 35.g4 h5 36.gxh5 gxh5 37.h4!

Black is in zugzwang, but it is vital not to allow the black h-pawn to advance any further, as will be seen in the subsequent variations.

37...♔c6

37...♔c5 38.♔xe5 reaches the same position as at move 42 in the main variation: 38...♔xc4 39.♔e4! ♔c5 40.♔d3 ♔b4 41.♔d4 ♔a4 42.♔c3 ♔a5 43.♔xb3 ♔b5 44.♔c3 ♔c5 45.♔d3! (it is essential to give up the b-pawn as far away as possible from the critical f7-square) 45...♔b4 46.♔e4 ♔b3 47.♔f5 ♔xb2 48.♔g5 ♔c3 49.♔xh5 ♔d4 50.♔g6 ♔e5+–. The black king does not reach f7; but if it had done so, White would have advanced his b-pawn.

38.♔xe5 ♔c5

39.♔f5!

White manoeuvres to lose a tempo, applying the mechanism known as triangulation. 39.♔e4? ♔xc4 40.♔e3 ♔d5 41.♔d3 ♔e5 42.♔c3 ♔f4 43.♔xb3 ♔g4 44.♔c4 ♔xh4=.

39...♔d4 40.♔f4! ♔c5 41.♔e5 ♔xc4 42.♔e4

It was essential to bring about this position with Black to move.

42...♔c5 43.♔d3 ♔d5

43...♔b4 44.♔d4 ♔a4 45.♔c3 ♔a5 46.♔xb3 ♔b5 reaches an ending known to theory as winning.

44.♔c3 ♔e4 45.♔xb3 ♔f5 46.♔c3 1-0

The black pawn reaches only as far as h3.

A final example, which is also a classic:

William Lombardy

Bobby Fischer

New York 1960 (2)

Naturally Black has many ways to win, but the following simplifying line, leading to the pattern of the distant passed pawn, is very easy:

30...♖xc3+! 31.bxc3 ♖xe5+ 32.♔d2 ♖xe1 33.♔xe1 ♔d5! 34.♔d2 ♔c4

With the dominant king, Black will be able to create a distant passed pawn whenever he wants.

35.h5 b6 36.♔c2 g5 37.h6 f4 38.g4 a5!

The moment has arrived.

39.bxa5 bxa5 40.♔b2 a4 41.♔a3 ♔xc3 42.♔xa4 ♔d4 43.♔b4 ♔e3 0-1

And as usual all the white pawns will be lost.

PATTERN 2 The protected passed pawn

The protected passed pawn is a particular case of the high-quality majority, which we shall study in the next section. Specifically it is the most obvious case of an unassailable majority, but it is very common and deserves a separate section.

Its virtues lie in the fact that the enemy king is obliged to keep an eye on it, losing mobility thereby; and yet the king can never capture it. But the apparent simplicity of this situation often induces a sort of hypnosis in the player, as we shall see in a few examples. We shall therefore try to present it with all its virtues and all its limitations, which are