FIDE Surveys – Goran Dizdar
1
Goran Dizdar:
Building up the endgame
advantage on a piece activity
There are different roads that lead to the
endgame positions.
Let me use this statement as a practical
means that could be used for making another
classification of endgames, too. There might
be the various reasons behind player's
decision to choose the path which leads to
the endgame, which certainly include
players' styles of play, ambitions,
inclinations toward the technical positions,
standings, etc. However, if we look at the
decision in a view of what's going on at the
chess board ( should I add - 'the one above
all the reasons'), we may find out that there
are two fundamentally opposite causes for
making it, depending on weather the
decision was forced or not by the events on
the board .
Endgames may come sometimes as the
consequence of an escape from some
difficult, unfavourable middle-game, where
the refugee didn't ask for price which would
get him out of grave danger. As a result, the
endgame position which followed would
often bear the scars of the previous trauma,
now easily noticeable in the form of some
material or palpable positional disadvantage.
And I believe somehow that you know what
I am writing about - we all have been
'rewarded' from time to time by our own
experience with the feeling and the costs of '
the last escape', haven't we? And nothing is
wrong with the method - some refugees
experienced with fighting the endgame
difficulties may finally survive and ... I
heard, believe it or not, that some even
enjoyed it! Strong faith, accompanied with
good knowledge of concrete basic positions,
may serve as reliable survival kit in
simplifications that would follow. Beside, a
lot of enthusiasm (read: hard work) is
required, let alone that believing in miracles
and paradoxes is welcomed, too. Well, the
elaboration of the 'forced' endgames will not
be our topic, I shall kindly leave this curious
witchcraft to some other authors and some
other articles ...
There is another type of games which
follows a very different scenario. The one in
which the endgame occurred because it was
the player's most reasonable choice, or the
most suitable choice for his/her style of play.
Unlike in the previous type, the positions in
this one wouldn't show the traces of
hardships of previous play for they hadn't
been traumatized and damaged by worse
middle-game. Here we deal with roughly
balanced positions or small advantages at
best, and the question on how to increase or
neutralize that small advantages may arise as
a crucial one, as soon as we begin to
consider the method of playing such
positions. These are the positions in which
the endgames have arisen with neither side
been really pressured by circumstances to
enter it, but rather because players chose to
play it, having confidence in their skill to
treat it good, and seeing it as a tool, as good
as any other, that would allow them to
outplay the opponent. And many times
players chose it just because they simply like
it. I remember the advice given by an
endgame expert, who wrote: 'If you wish to
play endgames well, firstly you make sure
that you like it'. That's an important truth and
good starting point which applies not, of
course, only to chess endgames. The
balanced endgames may also bring positions
that show no noticeable motives for either
side, and which are sometimes even
structurally balanced, with same light pieces
and symmetrical or similar pawn structure
left on the board. And what should be the
FIDE Surveys – Goran Dizdar
2
method of treatment of such positions?
Beside the question on how to handle the
small advantages now we have another one
that deserves to be answered: how to obtain
any advantages at all! We have the positions
in which we have nothing to' increase or
neutralize' yet, therefore we may deal with
the potentialities only, withe the motives still
deeply hidden somewhere in the position,
which may appear on 'one sunny day' on the
board as real advantages, only if we were
able to notice and nurture them all along to
manifestation. Since the things are here far
from obvious, we will have to deal with our
imagination. That's an interesting stuff and I
believe it deserves to be the topic of an
article. Still, before we surrender to the
topic, let me clarify something as regards
one important feature of the endgame, that
is: the more one position gets simplified, the
more importance of pawns' quality increases
- particularly of the passed pawns, and that is
why we have to pay more attention to the
feature of the pawn structure accordingly.
However, this subject will not be of our
main interest, for I had already confined the
topic mainly to the similarly structured or
symmetrical positions. On the other hand,
the potential that is hidden within the
different types of pawn structure is a huge
and deserves be the explained within more
that one relatively short article, so I will
leave it for another, wider presentation. This
will eventually direct our attention to the
pieces, and it is where I would like to give
you a piece of advice, which hopefully may
serve you well in your future encounters
with mentioned type of endgames.
What would be our guidance in such
balanced positions? Are there any marks we
can rely upon while searching for the hidden
motives, the traces of 'future' advantages'?
So let me begin with some obvious facts: the
more actively a piece is posted the better it
would contribute to the game / we should
follow this idea and look for its fulfilment
whenever the circumstances would make it
appropriate, throughout the game.
Nevertheless, such activity in middle-game
might be in many cases compensated or
neutralized by similar activities of
opponent's pieces, and sometimes even
suppressed by their strong dynamic potential
if they are involved on more important task -
we all heard about the cases when one side
got mated having a nicely posted piece or all
sorts of advantages on other, 'wrong side' of
the board. Such big power lies in co-
ordinated activity of the pieces that in many
cases the individual value of the single one
doesn't have considerable effect. We don't
find the same conditions in the endgame
when, due to reduction of material, many of
dynamic features progressively fade away,
whereby significance of any individual piece
increases consequently. It is for this reason
that introducing only one of the pieces to an
active position may in many circumstances
be enough to obtain some sort of advantage,
if another side doesn't have enough resources
to compensate it. And it is the great practical
approach, which we can rely upon when we
search for an advantage in balanced,
simplified endgame positions. We just have
to search the board thoroughly and look
consistently for the possible activity of one,
remember - only one piece! By posting it
actively we shall be able to tie up the
opponent's pieces, what would allow us to
progressively increase the activity of our
other pieces and build up the advantage!
Let me illustrate the method with the
analysis of some practical examples!
FIDE Surveys – Goran Dizdar
3
Popov L. : Keres P., Tallin 1973
XIIIIIIIIY
9-+ktr-+-tr0
9zp-+-+pzpp0
9-zpp+psn-+0
9+-+-+-+-0
9-+P+-zP-+0
9zP-sN-+-+-0
9-zP-+PzPKzP0
9tR-+R+-+-0
xiiiiiiiiy
Black is to move and it is hard to imagine
that he can cause his opponent any trouble,
so solid white position looks at the first
glance. Unless … we begin to look for the
motive of 'an active piece’. It is not an easy
task for an untrained eye to solve, but Keres
was not the one who would miss the chance.
15…Rhg8!
Strong response, with the obvious idea of
opening g-line with g7-g5 and posting his
Rook on active position. 16.
Kf3
The alternative 16.h4 would expose and
weaken white h-pawn further. However, it
was a reasonable option, provided that white
would be able to avoid further simplification
which would lead to the position with his
king tied up with protection of the pawn.
16…g5! 17. Rd8 Kd8 18.Rg1 White
still hopes to keep the position closed. 18.fg5
Rg5 would lead to the position with an
‘active piece’, which would allow Black to
build up his advantage progressively, mostly
due to the fact that the 'active piece' can’t be
easily changed or neutralized.
18…g4 19.Kg2 Ke7 20.Rd1 h5 21.e3
To get his Rook actively placed Black
prepares the opening of K-side lines, and
White can’t really prevent it. He should
better avoid a line like 21.Kg3 h4! 22.Kh4
g3!
21…h4 22.Kf1 g3! 23.hg3 Black
would have also achieved an active position
after 23.fg3 Ng4! 24.Ke2 Nh2 25.gh4 Rg2
26.Kd3 Ng4 27.Rd2 Rg3. The h-Pawn
would be lost anyhow, while the activity of
Black’s pieces wouldn’t vanish nevertheless.
23…hg3 24.Ke2
XIIIIIIIIY
9-+-+-+r+0
9zp-+-mkp+-0
9-zpp+psn-+0
9+-+-+-+-0
9-+P+-zP-+0
9zP-sN-zP-zp-0
9-zP-+KzP-+0
9+-+R+-+-0
xiiiiiiiiy
24…Rh8!
Makes sure that his Rook will penetrate
opponent’s position from the most active
position.
25.Rg1 gf2 26.Rg2 Rh4! 27.Kf2 Ng4
28.Ke2 f5 29.Kd2 Rh3 30.Re2 Kd6 31.b3
Black's play was exemplary up to this
moment. He found the way to get one of his
pieces active, used its strong position to
brought the another one, tied up the
opponent’s pieces with the defense of his
weakness, and … had he continued to
strengthen his pressure with 31…e5!, White
would have faced a difficult choice – to
weaken his f-Pawn permanently or to let the
black King closer.
31…Rh1?! 32.Nd1 Nf6 33.Kc2 e5 34.Nf2
Ra1 35.Kb2 Rf1 36.Nd3!
This is what makes difference now. Knight
is heading for an active position, and thus
enough counter-play is secured.
FIDE Surveys – Goran Dizdar
4
36…e4
36…ef4 37.ef4 Nh5 38.Rd2! brings nothing.
37.Ne5 c5 38.b4
38.Rg2! Re1 39.Rg6 Re2 40.Kc1 Ke6
41.Nd7! was the way to equality.
38…Ke6 39.Rg2 Re1 40. Rg3?
White missed the activity again, most
probably due to time trouble. 40.bc5 bc5
41.Rg7 Re3 42.Ra7 Nh5 43.Ra6 Ke7 44.Ng6
was the simplest way to hold.
40…Re2 41.Kb3 Ng4!
Black’s last trump!
42.Ng4 fg4 43.bc5 bc5 44.Rg4 Re3 45.Kb2!
45.Ka4 Rf3! makes more troubles for White.
45…Kf5 46.Rg5 Kf4 47.Rc5 Rd3! 48.Rc7
e3 49. Rf7 Kg3 50.c5?
The final mistake. White was still able to
save the game with 50.Rg7 Kf2 51.Rf7 Ke1
52.c5 e2 53.c6 Kd2 54.Re7 Rf3 55. Rd7!
Ke3 56.Ra7! Rf6 57. Re7 Kf2 58. c7 Rf8
59.Kc3 e1Q 60.Re1 Ke1 61.a4 ...
50…e2 51.Re7 Kf2 52.c6 Rf3! 53.c7 Rf8
54.c8Q Rc8 55.Rf7 Ke1 56.Ra7 Re8
White resigned 0:1.
Spassky B. : Shirov A., Paris 2000
XIIIIIIIIY
9r+l+-trk+0
9zppzp-+pzpp0
9-+-+-+-+0
9+-+-wq-+-0
9-+L+-+-+0
9+-zP-+-+-0
9PzP-+QzPPzP0
9tR-+-mK-+R0
xiiiiiiiiy
Considering that the structure is
symmetrical, one would expect that Black
should keep the Queens if he wished to
continue the fight. Moreover, Shirov is
renowned for his active play and strong
feeling for initiative, so we shouldn’t doubt
what was the choice.
13…Re8!
Surprise indeed! What was he attracted with
to has allowed such an endgame?
14.Qe5 Re5 15.Kd2
And Black has achieved his active piece.
But, of what avail is it if some of Re1 would
appear next? There would be only a dream
of an activity left.
XIIIIIIIIY
9r+l+-+k+0
9zppzp-+pzpp0
9-+-+-+-+0
9+-+-tr-+-0
9-+L+-+-+0
9+-zP-+-+-0
9PzP-mK-zPPzP0
9tR-+-+-+R0
xiiiiiiiiy
15…Be6!! 16.Be6 Rd8! 17.Kc2?
White wanted to keep his Rooks connected
and available for counter-play. But that was
an illusion which would cost him the game.
He should have kept passive still for a while,
for after 17.Kc1! fe6 18.Rd1 Rd1 19.Kd1 he
could still survive.
17…Re2 18.Kb3 fe6 19.Rad1 Rd6!
With this strong response Black closed both
a line and ranks which white Rooks had been
dreaming of!
20.Rd6 cd6 21.Rf1
Shirov's inventive play brought him to the
position in which his active Rook dominates
the 2nd rank and ties up both white pieces to
defense. Again we have the case of 'a piece
activity', the one which can't be changed or
neutralized.
21…d5 22.a4 Kf7
FIDE Surveys – Goran Dizdar
5
Black can now continue to build up his
advantage by improving position of all of his
pieces.
23.a5 e5 24.Ka3 Ke6 25.b3 g5 26.Kb4
It took too much time for White to improve
his pawn structure on one flank only. He is
way too slow for getting any counter-play
and his only hope could be the opponent's
inaccuracy.
26….h5 27.h3 e4 28.g3 Ke5?!
And he did it. 28...h4 was necessary before
the King's advance.
29. Kc5?!
Missing the chance to complicate the
opponent's task, after opening up f-line by
29.f4!. White Rook should reach square f7,
no matter what costs! Now, the story is over.
29…Rd2 30.Kb4 h4 31.gh4 gh4 32.a6 ba6
33.Ra1 Rf2 34.Ra6 Rf7 35.Rh6 e3
and White resigned 0:1.
Portisch L. : Smyslov V., Wijk aan Zee
1972
XIIIIIIIIY
9-sn-+-+-+0
9+p+-mkl+-0
9-zp-+pzppzp0
9+N+p+-+-0
9-+-+-zP-+0
9zP-+P+-zP-0
9-zP-mKP+LzP0
9+-+-+-+-0
xiiiiiiiiy
The slight disadvantage of black position
reflects in his pawn structure on Queen side.
The pawns are immobile and should White
open the position, they might become
accessible target for his pieces. However, all
paths toward black position are closed yet,
and as long as Black is able to maintain it in
such status, he will be safe. But White is to
move and the real question he faces is: can
he open the position and give his pieces real
work?
27.e4!
'Of course, he can!' White's Bishop cries!
27…de4
After this move the Bishop has turned to 'the
active one', what makes it fit to the theme of
our article. Was it not better to keep the
Pawn d5 on board, not allowing the Bishop's
activation along the longest diagonal?
Perhaps it was, but we shall see soon that
Smyslov had a logical continuation in mind.
Beside, he was certainly aware that White
would only need to play d3-d4 if he wanted
to force the pawn trade in center, for d3-
d4,e4-e5,Nb5-d6 could not be allowed.
28.Be4! Nc6 29.Kc3 e5?
That was the 'logical' idea which was
probably conceived two moves ago. Indeed,
at first glance it looks fine decision since
Black has opened scope for his Bishop
activity and now firmly controls important
white squares through which his position
could be entered. Another idea was - 29...g5,
what would have also opened his Bishop,
reduced his weaknesses and kept his position
still defensible.
30.fe5 fe5
XIIIIIIIIY
9-+-+-+-+0
9+p+-mkl+-0
9-zpn+-+pzp0
9+N+-zp-+-0
9-+-+L+-+0
9zP-mKP+-zP-0
9-zP-+-+-zP0
9+-+-+-+-0
xiiiiiiiiy
FIDE Surveys – Goran Dizdar
6
Without access toward Black's compromised
pawns White can't make no further progress.
An active piece is not enough to solve the
task, unless he will find the way to bring the
another ...
31.a4!
And Portisch did it! He noticed the true
nature of 29...e5, which was the weakening
of Pawn e5 and square d5. With the modest
pawn move he has just begun to exploit the
weaknesses.
31…Kd7 32.Na3! g5 33.Nc4 Bc4 34.Kc4
All of a sudden all the roads towards black
position are opened!
34…Kd6 35.Kb5
Black position was already too compromised
to be saved and White found the simplest
solution.
33…Kc7 36.Bc6! bc6 37.Ka6 g4 38.b3 c5
39.Kb5 Kb7 40.a5 ba5 41.Kc5
Black resigned 1:0.
Muse M. : Adams M., Germany 2000
XIIIIIIIIY
9-+-+r+k+0
9zp-+-+pvl-0
9-zpp+-+p+0
9+-zprzP-+-0
9-+-+NzP-+0
9+-zP-+-zP-0
9P+-+-+-zP0
9tR-+-+R+K0
xiiiiiiiiy
Unlike in the previous examples, here we
have the position with asymmetric structure.
White has already an active piece - his
Knight is splendidly placed in centre - and
Black's priority should be to expel him from
such a superior position. Black is to move
and there are two obvious options at his
disposal, f7-f6 and f7-f5, that may serve
such a purpose.
25…f6
Nothing was wrong with 25...f5 26.Nd6 Rd8
and Bf8 next. In that event the Knight
dominance would soon end. With text Black
counted on 26.Nf6 Bf6 27.ef6 Kf7 where
Rooks endgame could be only in his favor.
But his opponent had something different in
mind ...
XIIIIIIIIY
9-+-+r+k+0
9zp-+-+pvl-0
9-zpp+-+p+0
9+-zprzP-+-0
9-+-+NzP-+0
9+-zP-+-zP-0
9P+-+-+-zP0
9tR-+-+R+K0
xiiiiiiiiy
26.g4!!
With this strong positional pawn sacrifice
White made his Knight's post secured!
26…fe5 27.f5! gf5 28.gf5!
The pawn will control some vital squares
and support the activity of other pieces.
28…Kf7 29.Rg1! Rh8 30.Rg6
White pieces are perfectly co-ordinated and
can easily enter through the opponent's
ranks.
30…Bh6 31.Rc6 Rd7 32.h3
It was necessary prophylaxis, in order to
include the King in the game.
32…Bf4 33.Kg2 Rh4 34.a4
The typical way to bring a passive Rook into
the game.
34…Be3?
The Bishop left unprotected will only help
FIDE Surveys – Goran Dizdar
7
White tactically.
35.Nd6 Kg7 36.f6!
Here it is!
36...Kf6 37.Nc4 Kg5 38.Ne3 Rd2 39.Kg3
Rd3 40.Re1 Ra4 41.Kf3 e4 42.Kg3 Kh5
43.Kf4 Rd8 44.Rg1 Rf8 45.Sf5 e3 46.Ke5
Re8 47.Kf6
and Black resigned 1:0.
Conclusion
The games that were selected present the
idea of building up the advantage in
balanced endgames. They point out to the
importance of permanent search for activity,
what may in many cases result with the
uncovering of hidden potentialities in the
position of the pieces. This may serve as the
motive for finding an active role for a piece,
what could trigger a further development of
such activity through the co-ordination with
other pieces. In other words, if we can get
one piece activated, this would mostly lead
to some weakening in opponent's position.
Finding out the most effective way to use the
weakness, and tie up some of the opponent's
pieces with the defensive task, would give us
the opportunity to introduce more of our
pieces to active positions, and through co-
ordination of their activity to continue to
build up our advantage. I invite the reader to
search for more examples on the subject.
This would sharpen the ability of finding the
hidden motives and help in development of
methodical play. And, it goes without
saying, the practice is the most welcomed!
Good luck!