Understanding Rook Vs Minor Piece Endgames Ka...
LINK ->>->>->> https://urlca.com/2tkYWH
Leading player and theorist Aron Nimzowitsch's[65] influential books, My System (1925),[66] Die Blockade (1925) (in German),[67] and Chess Praxis (1936),[68][69] are among the most important works on the middlegame.[64] Nimzowitsch called attention to the possibility of letting one's opponent occupy the centre with pawns while you exert control with your pieces as in the Nimzo-Indian or Queen's Indian defences. He pointed out how in positions with interlocking pawn chains, one could attack the chain at its base by advancing one's own pawns and carrying out a freeing move (pawn break). He also drew attention to the strategy of occupying open files with one's rooks in order to later penetrate to the seventh rank where they could attack the enemy pawns and hem in the opponent's king. Another of his key concepts was prophylaxis, moves aimed at limiting the opponent's mobility to the point where he would no longer have any useful moves.
The second edition (1777) of Philidor's Analyse du jeu des Échecs devoted 75 pages of analysis to various endgames.[86] These included a number of theoretically important endings, such as rook and bishop versus rook, queen versus rook, queen versus rook and pawn, and rook and pawn versus rook. Certain positions in the endings of rook and bishop versus rook, rook and pawn versus rook, and queen versus rook have become known as Philidor's position. Philidor concluded his book with two pages of (in the English translation), \"Observations on the ends of parties\", in which he set forth certain general principles about endings, such as: \"Two knights alone cannot mate\" (see Two knights endgame), the ending with a bishop and rook pawn whose queening square is on the opposite color from the bishop is drawn (see Wrong rook pawn Bishop and pawn), and a queen beats a bishop and knight (see Pawnless chess endgame Queen versus two minor pieces).[87]
Staunton's The Chess-Player's Handbook (1847) includes almost 100 pages of analysis of endgames.[88] Some of Staunton's analysis, such as his analysis of the very rare rook versus three minor pieces endgame, is surprisingly sophisticated. At page 439, he wrote, \"Three minor Pieces are much stronger than a Rook, and in cases where two of them are Bishops will usually win without much difficulty, because the player of the Rook is certain to be compelled to lose him for one of his adversary's Pieces. If, however, there are two Knights and one Bishop opposed to a Rook, the latter may generally be exchanged for the Bishop, and as two Knights are insufficient of themselves to force checkmate, the game will be drawn.\" Modern-day endgame tablebases confirm Staunton's assessments of both endings.[89] Yet Reuben Fine, 94 years after Staunton, erroneously wrote on page 521 of Basic Chess Endings that both types of rook versus three minor piece endings \"are theoretically drawn.\" Grandmaster Pal Benko, an authority on the endgame and like Fine a world-class player at his peak, perpetuated Fine's error in his 2003 revision of Basic Chess Endings. Reuben Fine and Pal Benko, Basic Chess Endings (Algebraic Edition), McKay Chess Library, 2003, p. 524, .mw-parser-output cite.citation{font-style:inherit;word-wrap:break-word}.mw-parser-output .citation q{quotes:\"\\\"\"\"\\\"\"\"'\"\"'\"}.mw-parser-output .citation:target{background-color:rgba(0,127,255,0.133)}.mw-parser-output .id-lock-free a,.mw-parser-output .citation .cs1-lock-free a{background:url(\"//upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/6/65/Lock-green.svg\")right 0.1em center/9px no-repeat}.mw-parser-output .id-lock-limited a,.mw-parser-output .id-lock-registration a,.mw-parser-output .citation .cs1-lock-limited a,.mw-parser-output .citation .cs1-lock-registration a{background:url(\"//upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/d/d6/Lock-gray-alt-2.svg\")right 0.1em center/9px no-repeat}.mw-parser-output .id-lock-subscription a,.mw-parser-output .citation .cs1-lock-subscription a{background:url(\"//upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/a/aa/Lock-red-alt-2.svg\")right 0.1em center/9px no-repeat}.mw-parser-output .cs1-ws-icon a{background:url(\"//upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/4/4c/Wikisource-logo.svg\")right 0.1em center/12px no-repeat}.mw-parser-output .cs1-code{color:inherit;background:inherit;border:none;padding:inherit}.mw-parser-output .cs1-hidden-error{display:none;color:#d33}.mw-parser-output .cs1-visible-error{color:#d33}.mw-parser-output .cs1-maint{display:none;color:#3a3;margin-left:0.3em}.mw-parser-output .cs1-format{font-size:95%}.mw-parser-output .cs1-kern-left{padding-left:0.2em}.mw-parser-output .cs1-kern-right{padding-right:0.2em}.mw-parser-output .citation .mw-selflink{font-weight:inherit}ISBN 0-8129-3493-8. Grandmaster Andrew Soltis in a 2004 book expressly disagreed with Staunton, claiming that the rook versus two bishops and knight ending is drawn with correct play. Andrew Soltis, Rethinking the Chess Pieces, Batsford 2004, p. 84. ISBN 0-7134-8904-9. At the time Benko and Soltis offered their assessments (in 2003 and 2004, respectively), endgame tablebases had already proven that Staunton was correct, and that Fine, Benko, and Soltis were wrong, although the ending can take up to 68 moves to win. Müller and Lamprecht, p. 403.
In recent years, computer-generated endgame tablebases have revolutionized endgame theory, conclusively showing best play in many complicated endgames that had vexed human analysts for over a century, such as queen and pawn versus queen. They have also overturned human theoreticians' verdicts on a number of endgames; for example by proving that the two bishops versus knight ending, which had been thought drawn for over a century, can be a win for the bishops (see Pawnless chess endgame Minor pieces only and Chess endgame Effect of tablebases on endgame theory).
Chess is an abstract strategy game that involves no hidden information and no use of dice or cards. It is played on a chessboard with 64 squares arranged in an eight-by-eight grid. At the start, each player controls sixteen pieces: one king, one queen, two rooks, two bishops, two knights, and eight pawns. White moves first, followed by Black. Checkmating the opponent's king involves putting the king under immediate attack (in \"check\") whereby there is no way for it to escape. There are also several ways a game can end in a draw.
Chess pieces are divided into two different colored sets. While the sets might not be literally white and black (e.g. the light set may be a yellowish or off-white color, the dark set may be brown or red), they are always referred to as \"white\" and \"black\". The players of the sets are referred to as White and Black, respectively. Each set consists of sixteen pieces: one king, one queen, two rooks, two bishops, two knights, and eight pawns. Chess sets come in a wide variety of styles; for competition, the Staunton pattern is preferred.
When a pawn advances to its eighth rank, as part of the move, it is promoted and must be exchanged for the player's choice of queen, rook, bishop, or knight of the same color. Usually, the pawn is chosen to be promoted to a queen, but in some cases, another piece is chosen; this is called underpromotion. In the animated diagram, the pawn on c7 can be advanced to the eighth rank and be promoted. There is no restriction on the piece promoted to, so it is possible to have more pieces of the same type than at the start of the game (e.g., two or more queens). If the required piece is not available (e.g. a second queen) an inverted rook is sometimes used as a substitute, but this is not recognized in FIDE-sanctioned games.
The pieces are identified by their initials. In English, these are K (king), Q (queen), R (rook), B (bishop), and N (knight; N is used to avoid confusion with king). For example, Qg5 means \"queen moves to the g-file, 5th rank\" (that is, to the square g5). Different initials may be used for other languages. In chess literature, figurine algebraic notation (FAN) is frequently used to aid understanding independent of language.
To resolve ambiguities, an additional letter or number is added to indicate the file or rank from which the piece moved (e.g. Ngf3 means \"knight from the g-file moves to the square f3\"; R1e2 means \"rook on the first rank moves to e2\"). For pawns, no letter initial is used; so e4 means \"pawn moves to the square e4\".
If the piece makes a capture, \"x\" is usually inserted before the destination square. Thus Bxf3 means \"bishop captures on f3\". When a pawn makes a capture, the file from which the pawn departed is used to identify the pawn making the capture, for example, exd5 (pawn on the e-file captures the piece on d5). Ranks may be omitted if unambiguous, for example, exd (pawn on the e-file captures a piece somewhere on the d-file). A minority of publications use \":\" to indicate a capture, and some omit the capture symbol altogether. In its most abbreviated form, exd5 may be rendered simply as ed. An en passant capture may optionally be marked with the notation \"e.p.\"
Endgame theory is concerned with positions where there are only a few pieces left. Theoretics categorize these positions according to the pieces, for example \"King and pawn endings\" or \"Rook versus a minor piece\".
The most basic step in evaluating a position is to count the total value of pieces of both sides.[34] The point values used for this purpose are based on experience; usually, pawns are considered worth one point, knights and bishops about three points each, rooks about five points (the value difference between a rook and a bishop or knight being known as the exchange), and queens about nine points. The king is more valuable than all of the other pieces combined, since its checkmate loses the game. But in practical terms, in the endgame, the king as a fighting piece is generally more powerful than a bishop or knight but less powerful than a rook.[35] These basic values are then modified by other factors like position of the piece (e.g. advanced pawns are usually more valuable than those on their initial squares), coordination between pieces (e.g. a pair of bishops usually coordinate better than a bishop and a knight), or the type of position (e.g. knights are generally better in closed positions with many pawns while bishops are more powerful in open positions).[36] 59ce067264
https://www.synergicsafety.com/forum/announcements-and-deals/buy-your-house-letter
