Chapter 8

Rook + Minor Piece versus

Rook + Minor Piece Endgames

These configurations occur very often in practical play and are not covered that well in the literature.

8.1 R+N vs. R+N

A slight initiative weighs heavily, as neither piece likes passivity at all:

08.01 Andersson – Robatsch

Munich 1979

1.Nf3 Nf6 2.c4 c5 3.g3 b6 4.Bg2 Bb7 5.0-0 g6 6.b3 Bg7 7.Bb2 0-0 8.Nc3 d5 9.Nxd5 Nxd5 10.Bxg7 Kxg7 11.cxd5 Qxd5 12.d4 cxd4 13.Qxd4+ Qxd4 14.Nxd4 Bxg2 15.Kxg2

Without the knights, the rook endgame would be a clear draw. But with them, White’s slight initiative is unpleasant and Black must defend carefully. 15…a6?! This is slightly odd. 15…Rc8 is the main move and Black draws most of the recent games. 16.Rac1 Ra7 16…Nd7 17.Rc7 Rfd8 18.Rd1 Rac8 19.Ra7 Kf8 20.Nf3 Nb8 21.Rxd8+ Rxd8 22.Rb7 Nd7 23.b4 is also unpleasant. 17.Rc2 Rd8 18.e3 e5 19.Nf3 f6

20.g4!? This typical advance prepares the activation of the king and the undermining g4-g5. 20…Rd6? 20…Rad7 21.Rfc1 Kf7 22.Rc7 Ke6 is the lesser evil. 21.Rfc1 Nd7?! 21…Rb7 is called for. 22.Rc6!

Andersson exchanges the active black rook. 22…Rxc6 22…Rd5 23.R1c2 Rb7 24.Nd2 23.Rxc6 Kf7

24.Nd2 Now it is time to improve the knight’s position. 24…Ke7 25.Ne4 Rb7

26.b4 Andersson has all the time in the world and first restricts Black’s knight further. 26…Rb8 27.Nc3 f5 27…Rb7 28.Nd5+ Kf7 29.Kf3 a5 30.b5 Kg7 31.Re6+– 28.Nd5+ Kf7 29.Kg3

29…h5?! Black opens inroads, which is White’s job. But White wins in the long run anyway, e.g., 29…fxg4 30.Kxg4 a5 31.b5 a4 32.h4 Rb7 33.Kg5 Kg7 34.h5 gxh5 35.Kxh5 e4 36.Kg5 Ne5 37.Rxb6 Rf7 38.Nf4+–

30.gxf5 gxf5 31.Rd6 Rb7 32.Kh4 Kg7 33.Kxh5 1-0

The next example was analyzed in detail by Anna Muzychuk in CBM 135:

08.02 Muzychuk – Giri

Wijk aan Zee 2010

17.Rc1 White’s strategical initiative is difficult to neutralize as Black has no counterplay. 17…b5?! 17…Rc8 is called for: 18.Ke2 Ke7 19.Ke3 Nd7 (Muzychuk) and White only has a slight advantage. 18.Ke2 Kd7 19.Rc6 Rhc8 20.Rhc1

20…Rxc6?! Now White’s initiative is difficult to deal with because of the passive rook a8. Black should try to exchange rooks with 20…Ng8! 21.a4 Ne7 22.Rxc8 Rxc8 23.Rxc8 Kxc8 24.axb5 axb5 25.Kd3 Kc7 26.Kc3 Ng6 27.Kb4 Kb6! with good drawing chances according to Muzychuk. 21.Rxc6 Ng8?!

21…Nh5 22.g3 f5 generates more counterplay. 22.a4! White strengthens the pressure on the light squares in tactical fashion. 22…Ne7 22…bxa4? runs into 23.Nc4+– 23.Rb6 Kc7 24.a5 Ra7 25.Nf3 f6

26.Ne1! The knight heads for the queenside, while king and pawns will operate on the kingside. 26…Nc8 27.Rc6+ Kd7 28.Nd3 Ne7 29.Rc3 f5 29…Rc7 30.Nb4 30.f3 f4 31.Kf2 Ra8 32.h4 g6

33.g3! White opens a second front, which will overload the defense. 33…fxg3+ 34.Kxg3 g5? This only opens roads for White. Here the guideline is valid that you should not play on the wing where the opponent is stronger. But good advice is hard to give anyway. 35.hxg5 Rg8 36.Kh4 h6 37.gxh6 Rg1 38.Rc1 Rg6

39.f4 39.Kh5!? was easier, as Muzychuk demonstrates in her notes: 39…Rg2 (39…Rg3 40.Nf2+–) 40.Rh1 Ng6 41.h7 Nh8 (41…Ke7 42.Rc1+–) 42.Rc1 Rg7 43.Rc6+– 39…Rxh6+ 40.Kg3 exf4+ 41.Nxf4 Ng6 42.Ne6! Ke7 43.Nd4 Kf6 44.Nf5 Rh5 (D)

45.Rc8! Good technique. White activates all her forces. 45…Rg5+ 45…Ke5 46.Re8+ Kf6 47.Re6++– 46.Kf3 Rg1 47.Nxd6 Rb1 48.Re8

Rxb2 49.Re6+ Kg5 50.Nf7+ Kh5 51.Ke3 Rb3+ 52.Kd4 Rb4+ 53.Kc5 Rc4+ 54.Kb6 b4 55.Rxg6 1-0

In the next example even a few pawns are enough to win:

08.03 Ivanchuk – Vachier Lagrave

Khanty-Mansiysk 2010

57.Ra2! Of course Ivanchuk does not exchange his active rook. The technical endgame 57.Nxf7+? Kg7 58.Rxb6 Nxb6 59.Ne5 is probably only drawn. 57…Nc7 (D)

58.Ra7! Activity is of crucial importance in this kind of endgame. The greedy 58.Nxf7+? violates the endgame principle “Do not rush”: 58…Kg7 59.Ne5 Rb7 60.Nc6 Kf6 61.Nxd4 e5 62.Nc2 Ne6 with good drawing chances. 58…Rb2+ 58…Na6

59.Nxf7+ Kg7 60.Ne5+ Kg8 61.Kg3 59.Kg3 Rc2 60.Nxf7+ Kg7 61.Ne5 Kf6 62.Kf4

White dominates as Black’s knight is poorly placed. 62…Ke7 63.g3 63.Nxg6+ Kd6 64.g3+– 63…Rc5 63…Kf6 64.Rb7 d3 65.Nxd3 e5+ 66.Ke3 Rc3 67.Kd2+–; 63…Kd6 64.Ra4 Nb5 65.Ra6+ Ke7 66.Rb6 Rc5 67.Nxg6+ Kf6 68.Nf8+– 64.Rb7 Kd6 65.Rb6+ Ke7 66.g4 hxg4 67.fxg4 g5+ 68.hxg5 Rb5 69.Rc6 Rb7 70.Rc4 Nb5 71.Rc8 Nc3 72.Rh8 Ne2+ 73.Kf3 Rb5 74.g6 Ng1+ 75.Kg2 Rxe5 75…Kf6 is met by 76.Rf8+ Kg7 77.Rf7+ Kg8 78.Nd7+–

76.g7 Rg5 77.g8Q Rxg8 78.Rxg8 d3 79.Ra8 d2 80.Ra1 Ne2 81.Rd1 Nc3 82.Rxd2 Nxe4 83.Re2 Ng5 84.Kg3 Kf6 85.Kh4 Kg6 86.Re3 Kh6 87.Ra3 Kg6 88.Ra8 Nf3+ 89.Kg3 Ne5 90.Ra6 Kg5 91.Ra5 1-0

Active counterplay is often the order of the day:

08.04 Walter – Moehn

Berlin 2017

52.h5? Now Black’s counterplay is quick enough. It had to be slowed down with 52.Nf3! Nc3 (52…Nd4 53.Ra5+ Ke4 54.Ra4 e2 55.Rxd4+ Ke3 56.Rd8 Kxf4 57.g5 Rf1 58.Rf8+ Kg4 59.Re8 Rxf3 60.Re4+ Rf4 61.Rxf4+ Kxf4 62.Kf2+–; 52…Ke4 53.Ra4+ Kd3 54.g5 Rb2+ 55.Kg3 Nc3 56.Ra3 e2 57.g6 Kc2 58.Rxc3+ Kxc3 59.g7 Rb8 60.h5+–) 53.Rc2 Ne4 (53…e2 54.Rxc3 Rf1 55.Re3 Rxf3 56.Kxf3+–) 54.g5 Ke6 55.Nd4+ Kd5 56.Ne2+– 52…Nd4! The correct route for the knight. 52…Nc3? 53.Rc2 e2 54.Nf3 Kc4 55.h6 Kd3 56.Rxc3+ Kxc3 57.h7 Rb8 58.g5+–

53.Nf3 53.h6 e2 54.Nd3 Ke4 55.h7 Rb8 56.Ne1 Kxf4 57.Ra7 Rh8= 53…e2 54.Ra5+ Ke4 55.Ra4 The alternatives do not win either: 55.Re5+ Kxf4 56.Nxd4 e1Q (56…Kxe5 57.Nxe2 Kf6=) 57.Rxe1 Rxe1=; 55.Nxd4 Rg1+ 56.Kh3 Rh1+ 57.Kg2 Rg1+= 55…Ke3 The underpromotion 55…e1N+?! is not a practical choice, but also possible: 56.Nxe1 Rxe1 57.Kg3 (57.h6 Kxf4 58.Rxd4+ Kg5=) 57…Rg1+ 58.Kh4 Kf3 59.Rxd4 Rxg4+ 60.Kh3 Rg3+ 61.Kh2 Rg2+ 62.Kh1 Rg4 63.Rd3+ Kf2 64.Rd2+ (64.Rh3 Rg1+=) 64…Kf3 65.Rh2 Kxf4= However, not 55…e1Q? 56.Rxd4+ Ke3 57.Nxe1 Kxd4 58.h6 Rxe1 59.h7 Re8 60.g5+–

56.Rxd4 56.Nxd4 is met by 56…Rg1+ (56…e1Q? 57.Nc2++–) 57.Kh2 Rh1+ 58.Kg2 Rg1+ 59.Kh2 (59.Kxg1 draws as well, e.g., 59…e1Q+ 60.Kg2 Qf2+ 61.Kh3 Qf1+ 62.Kh4 Qf2+ 63.Kg5 Qxf4+ 64.Kh4=) 56…Rf1! The mighty passed pawn must remain as 56…e1Q?? runs into 57.Nxe1 Kxd4 58.h6 Rxe1 59.h7 Re8 60.g5+– 57.Rd8 Rf2+ 58.Kg1 Rf1+ 58…Rxf3 is also playable, e.g., 59.Re8+ Kd2 60.h6 (60.Rxe2+ Kxe2 61.Kg2 Rxf4 62.Kg3 Ke3 63.h6 Ke4 64.Kh4 Ke5 65.h7 Rf8 66.Kg5=) 60…Re3 61.Rd8+ Rd3 62.Re8 Re3 63.Rd8+= 59.Kg2 Rf2+ ½-½

Exercises

E08.01 Hebden – Baburin

Hinckley Island 2010

Black to move and win

E08.02 Kantans – Stremavicius

Palanga 2018

Black to move and win

E08.03 Botvinnik – Alekhine

Holland 1938

How did Botvinnik continue?

E08.04 Nuesken – Peschel

Pardubice 2004

How should White use the moment?

8.2 R+B vs. R+B with same-color bishops

This endgame type might be called the Carlsen Endgame. Traditional values like space advantage, a good bishop, good cooperation and an active king are often important.

(a) Active king

08.05 Carlsen – Caruana

Sao Paulo/Bilbao 2012

White is better as Carlsen’s bishop is better and his king much more active: 29.Re4! g6 29…f5? 30.Rxe8+ Rxe8 31.Rb5+– 30.g4 This typical advance marks Black’s f- and h-pawns as weaknesses. 30.Rb5!?

30…Kf8 31.h4 Rxe4 32.Kxe4 Re8+ 33.Kd3 Re6 34.Be3 Kg7 35.Rb5 Bd8 36.h5!

The typical undermining of Black’s structure. 36…Rd6+ 37.Kc4 Rc6+ 38.Kd5 Re6 38…Rxc3?? runs into 39.Bd4++– 39.Bd4+ Kf8 40.f4

40…Bc7?! Without his king, Caruana cannot deal with the invasion in the center. 40…Ke7 was more tenacious, but also loses in the long run, e.g., 41.c4 Kd7 42.f5 gxf5 43.gxf5 Rd6+ 44.Ke4 Rc6 45.c5 bxc5 46.Rxc5 41.f5! Rd6+ 42.Ke4 Rc6

43.Rb1! Magnus retreats his rook to be able to operate more quickly on both wings. This is a typical advantage of the attacker as his forces are quicker. 43…Ke8 43…gxh5 44.gxh5 Rc4 is met by 45.Kd5 Rxa4 46.Kc6 Bb8 (46…Rc4+ 47.Kb5+–) 47.Rg1 Rc4+ 48.Kxb6+–; 43…g5 44.Kd5 Rd6+ 45.Kc4 Ke7 46.Re1+ Kd7 47.Kb5+– 44.hxg6 fxg6 45.Rh1! The rook already operates on the kingside. 45…Kf7 46.Kd5 Rd6+ 47.Kc4

47…gxf5?! Normally the defender should exchange pawns, but here all pawns on the kingside will be exchanged. 47…g5! is more tenacious, but does not defend in the long run, e.g., 48.Kb5 Bd8 49.Re1 Bf6 50.Bxb6 Bxc3 (50…h5 51.gxh5 Rd5+ 52.Kc6 Rxf5 53.c4 g4 54.Rg1+–) 51.Rc1 Bb4 52.Rc7+ Kf6 53.Rh7 Rd5+ 54.Kc6 Rd6+ 55.Kb7 Rd2 56.Rxh6+ Kf7 57.Rh7+ Kg8 58.Rc7 Rg2 59.Rc4+– 48.gxf5 Bd8 49.f6! This advance destroys the lines of communication in Black’s camp.

49…Bxf6 49…Kg6 50.Rg1+ Kf7 51.Rg7+ Ke6 52.Rh7+– 50.Rxh6 Be7 51.Rxd6 Bxd6 52.Kb5 Ke6 53.Bxb6 Kd7 54.c4 Kc8 55.Bxa5 Kb7 56.Bb4 Of course not 56.c5?? Bxc5 57.Kxc5 Ka8= 56…Bf4 57.c5 Ka7 58.c6 Kb8 59.a5 Ka7 60.a6 Ka8 61.Bc5 Bb8 62.Kc4 Bc7 63.Kd5 Bd8 64.Ke6 Bc7 65.Kd7 Ba5 66.Be7 1-0

In the next case, Rosentalis opens the king’s road in an original way:

08.06 Rozentalis – Appel

1994 (D)

36.Rc5! Ke7 37.Rbb5 Rxc5?! Opening the path plays into White’s hand. But the position is lost in any case, e.g., 37…Kd8 38.Rxc7 Kxc7

39.Kf4 h6 40.Rc5+ Kd8 41.a6 bxa6 42.a4 Ke7 43.Ra5 Ke8 44.Rxa6

Ke7 45.Ra5 Kf7 46.Bf3 Ke7 47.Rc5 Kd8 48.Rc6 Ke7 49.g4+– 38.dxc5! Kd8 39.a6 Kc8 39…bxa6 40.Ra5 d4+ 41.cxd4 c3 42.c6 c2 43.Rc5+– 40.Rb6!! Again very creative! 40…Bg8 40…axb6 41.a7+– 41.Rf6 Rd8 42.Kd4 bxa6 43.Rd6 1-0

(b) Capablanca’s Rule

Often the attacker puts the pawns on squares of the color the bishop cannot control to complement the bishop and to fix weaknesses:

08.07 Ehlvest – Christiansen

New York 2003

25.a4! Ehlvest fixes the weakness on a5. 25…h5 After 25…Bb2 26.Rc2 Ba3 27.Rd5 Bb4 28.Bg5! Re1+ 29.Kg2 Rb1 30.Rc7 (Postny in CBM 95), White’s rook are extremely active. 26.Rd5 Bf8 26…Re6 27.Rc7 b6 28.Rb7+–; 26…Ra6 27.Rcc5+– 27.Bb6 Bh6

28.Rc7 This exchange overloads the defender so that one of the weaknesses will fall. 28…Rxc7 29.Bxc7 Rc8 30.Bxa5 Rc1+ 31.Kg2 Rc2 32.Bb6 Bg7 33.Rd8+ 1-0

(c) The restriction method

Sometimes it is better to use the pawns to restrict the enemy bishop. Karpov is a real master here:

08.08 Karpov – Uhlmann

Madrid 1973

25.f3 Bg6 26.Re7 b6 27.Rae1 h6 28.Rb7 Rd6 28…Rc2 29.Rxb6 Rxb2 30.Re2 29.Ree7 h5?! 29…Rf6 is called for. 30.gxh5 Bxh5 31.g4 Bg6 32.f4! Rc1+?! 32…Be4 is more tenacious, e.g., 33.Rxf7 Rg6 34.Be2 Rf8 35.Rxf8+ Kxf8 36.Kf2 Rc6 33.Kf2 Rc2+ 34.Ke3 Be4 34…Re6+ 35.Rxe6 fxe6 36.Rxb6 Be4 37.Bd7+– 35.Rxf7 Rg6 36.g5 Kh7 36…Rxb2 37.Rfe7+– 37.Rfe7 Rxb2 38.Be8 Rb3+ 39.Ke2 Rb2+ 40.Ke1 Rd6 41.Rxg7+ Kh8 42.Rge7 1-0

08.09 Karpov – Ljubojevic

Monte Carlo 1998

30.g4! Be6 31.Ra8+ Kg7 32.Bd3 Rc7 33.Rb8 Kf6 34.b6! Re7 35.Kc3 h5 36.h3 h4 37.Kb4! Kg7 38.Kc5 f5 39.gxf5 Bf7 40.Bb5 Kf6 41.Kd6 Re3 41…Bh5 42.Rf8+ Rf7 43.Rxf7+ Bxf7 44.Bc6 bxc6 45.b7+– 42.Rxb7 Rb3 43.Bc6 Rb4 44.Rb8 Bh5 45.Bxd5 Rxd4 46.b7 Bf7 47.Rf8 Rxd5+ 48.Kc6 Rd1 49.b8Q Rc1+ 50.Kd6 Rd1+ 51.Kc5 1-0

Exercises

E08.05 Akesson – Wedberg

Stockholm 2000

How to untangle with Black?

E08.06 Leko – Hübner

Dortmund 2000

How did Leko convert his advantage?

8.3 R+B vs. R+B opposite color

This can be called the Karpov endgame. Opposite-color bishops favor the attacker and have nothing to do with a draw. Only pure opposite-color bishop endings have a large drawish tendency. This is a favorite theme of Russian trainer Mark Dvoretsky, who has also made a detailed investigation of the following classic in his Analytical Manual:

08.10 Karpov – Kavalek

Nice 1974

31.Kc3? 31.g5! Ra5

32.Bd1 This retreat is Dvoretsky’s suggestion. 32.Rb1 is Karpov’s suggestion, which should win as well: 32…Rxa2

(a) 32…Kf7 33.Bd1 Rxa2

34.c5!! Ra5 (34…dxc5 35.Rb7+–) 35.c6 Rxd5+ 36.Ke2 Rc5 37.Rb7 Rxc6 38.Bb3+ Ke8 39.Ba4+–;

(b) 32…Ra3+ 33.Rb3 Rxa2 34.c5 dxc5 35.d6 c4+ 36.Kxc4 e6 37.d7 Rd2 38.Bc6 Rc2+ 39.Kd4 Rxc6 40.d8Q Rd6+ 41.Qxd6 Bxd6 42.Ke3 e5 43.Rb7 exf4+ 44.Kf3 Be5 45.Ra7 Bc3 46.Rxa6+–; 33.c5 Ra3+ 34.Ke2 dxc5 (34…Ra2+ 35.Ke1 Ra3 36.c6 Rxf3 37.Rc1+–) 35.d6! exd6 (35…e6 36.d7 Be7 37.Rb8+ Kf7 38.d8Q Bxd8 39.Rxd8 Ra2+ 40.Ke3 Ra3+ 41.Kf2 c4 42.Rd7+ Kg8 43.Rg7+ Kh8 44.Rc7+–) 36.Bd5+ Kh8 37.Rb8+– (Karpov)

32…Rxa2 33.Bb3 Ra5 34.Kc3 Kf7 35.Kb4 Rc5 36.Ra1 a5+ 37.Rxa5 Rxa5 38.Kxa5 e6 (38…e5 39.c5! Be7 [39…dxc5 40.fxe5+–] 40.fxe5 Bd8+ 41.Kb5 dxe5 42.d6+ Ke8 43.c6+–) 39.dxe6+ Kxe6 40.Kb6 Kd7 41.Ba4+ Ke6 42.Kc6 Ke7 43.Kd5 Kf7 44.Bd7 Be7 45.Be6+ Kf8 46.Kc6 Ke8 47.Bg8 Kf8 48.Bxh7 Kf7 49.Kd5 Bd8 50.Kxd6 Bxg5 51.fxg5 f4 52.c5 f3 53.c6 f2 54.c7 f1Q 55.Bg8+ Kxg8 56.c8Q++– (Dvoretsky)

31…fxg4 32.Bxg4 Kf7 33.Be6+ Kf6 34.Bg8 Rc7 Simplification into a rook endgame with 34…Bxh6? 35.Rxh6 Kg7 36.Rxh7+ Kxg8 is refuted by 37.Rxe7 Rc8 38.Rd7+– 35.Bxh7 e6! Black needs more space. 36.Bg8 exd5 37.h7

37…Bg7? Kavalek had to play 37…Rxc4+ 38.Kd3 Bg7 but Karpov would still have preserved practical winning chances with 39.Bxd5 (39.h8Q?! Bxh8 40.Rxh8 Rc8=) 39…Rc5 40.Bg8 Rh5 41.Rb1 38.Bxd5 Bh8 39.Kd3 Kf5 40.Ke3 Re7+ 41.Kf3 a5 42.a4 Rc7 43.Be4+ Kf6 44.Rh6 Rg7 45.Kg4 1-0

The next endgame was investigated in depth in The Magic of Chess Tactics by Meyer and Müller:

08.11 Shirov – Lautier

Munich 1993

In 1993, Alexei Shirov’s start at the Munich tournament did not go well. After two rounds he had scored only a half-point, and in the third round his position against Joel Lautier was very bad until the second time control, when Lautier was too greedy and had to seal a move in the diagrammed position.

Karsten Müller, who was Shirov’s second in Munich, reports here. Although Black is three pawns up, he is on the brink of disaster because of White’s strong attack. After analyzing the position for a long time, I shared my thoughts with the German chess trainer and journalist Claus Dieter Meyer, who later wrote an article for the German Schach Magazin 64 (12/1994), which Shirov included in his book Fire on Board.

61…Kg8?! Lautier had indeed sealed the move we had expected. Although there are better defenses, we all failed to see considerable finesses after the game continuation. Instead of the risky king move, there were two cold-blooded ways to hold on:

(a) 61…Rh3 62.Rxg7+ Kh8 63.Kg6 f4+ 64.Kg5 (64.Kf7? Rh7!) 64…Bf3 (64…Rd3? is beautifully refuted by 65.Re7+ Rxd4 66.cxd4 g3 67.Rxe4 g2 68.Re1 f3 69.Kg6 f2 70.Re8# which Müller had found shortly before resumption of the adjourned game) 65.Kxf4 Bd1 66.Rxg4+ Kh7 67.Rg7+ Kh6=; (b) 61…Rd3 is playable as well; (c) but not 61…Kh8?? 62.Bxg7+ Kg8 63.Kf6 Bc6 64.Rf7+– along with mate

62.Kg6 Bc6 63.Bc5!? Lautier had overlooked this tricky move in his adjournment analysis and did not find the necessary retort. 63…Rd3? 63…Kh8!! although this appears paradoxical, it should have been played because first and foremost Black must avoid the terrible rook-bishop battery like in the game! The main line runs 64.Bd4 Kg8 and we have reached the position after 62…Bc6 again. But now 65.Rxg7+ Kf8 66.Rc7

is the acid test, e.g., 66…Bg2! offers amazingly tough resistance:

Not 66…Bd5? 67.Rc5! Müller’s improvement (67.Kf6 Ke8 68.Rc5 Bb7! 69.Re5+ Kd7 70.Re7+ Kc6 71.Re6+= Shirov & Lautier in their post-mortem analysis) 67…Be6 (67…Bb7 68.Re5! Bc6 69.Bc5+ Kg8 70.Re6 Bd7 71.Re7 Rd3 72.Rg7+ Kh8 73.Bd4+–; 67…Bf7+ 68.Kf6 Ke8 69.Be5 Rg2 70.Rc8+ Kd7 71.Rc7+ Ke8 72.Rxf7 Rxb2 73.Ke6+–) 68.Kf6 Bd7 69.Rc7 Ke8 70.Ra7 Kd8 (70…Bc6 71.Re7+ Kd8 [71…Kf8 72.Rc7 Be8 73.Rc8+–] 72.Bb6+ Kc8 73.Rc7+ Kb8 74.Rxc6+–) 71.Bb6+ Kc8 72.Rc7+ Kd8 73.Rc5+ Ke8 74.Re5+ Kf8 75.Bc5+ Kg8 76.Rd5! Rd3 77.Bd4 f4 78.Rxd7 g3 79.Rg7+ Kf8 (79…Kh8 80.Kf7+–)80.Rb7 Ke8 (80…Kg8 81.Be5 Re3 82.Kg6 Kf8 83.Bxf4+–) 81.Ke6 Kd8 82.Be5 Ke8 83.Rh7+–

67.Kf6 Ke8 68.Ke6 Kd8 69.Rc5 Bb7 70.Bf6+ Ke8 71.Rc7 Re3+ 72.Be5 Rxe5+ 73.Kxe5 Here C.D.Meyer revised our former analysis and now came to the conclusion that Black is probably able to survive, for example, 73…Be4 74.Kf4 Kd8 75.Ra7 Kc8 76.Rxa6 Kb7 77.Rg6 Bd3 78.Ke5 Kc7 79.Kd4 and here Vincent Keymer found 79…Bc2!=

64.Rxg7+ Kh8 65.Bd4! Rxd4 Forced, since after 65…Be8+ 66.Kh6 Rh3+ 67.Kg5 Rh5+ 68.Kf4+– a discovered check would decide the issue. 66.cxd4 f4 The alternative 66…g3 loses because of 67.Rh7+ Kg8 68.Rc7 Be8+ (68…Kf8 69.Rxc6 g2 70.Kf6 Kg8 71.Rc8+ Kh7 72.Rc7+ Kh8 73.Rg7+–) 69.Kf6 f4 70.d5 (70.Rg7+ Kh8 [70…Kf8 71.d5+–] 71.Rg5 Bc6 72.d5 Bxd5 73.Rxd5 g2 74.Kf7!+–, Certic in Informant 58) 70…Kh8 (70…Kf8 71.Rh7 Kg8 72.Rg7+ Kh8 [72…Kf8 73.d6+–] 73.Rg4+–) 71.Rg7 a5 (71…Bd7 72.Rg5 Kh7 73.Ke5+–) 72.Rg4 Bd7 73.Rxf4 g2 74.Kf7 Be8+ 75.Kf8 Bh5 76.Rh4 Kh7 77.Rxh5+ Kg6 78.Rh8+– 67.Rc7 Be4+ 67…Bd5 68.Rc8+ Bg8 69.Rf8 f3 70.d5 g3 71.Rxf3 Bxd5 72.Rxg3+– (Lautier) 68.Kh6 Bd5 Now Shirov found the “bone crusher”… 69.Rc5! Leaving Lautier defenseless. 69…Bg8 70.d5 f3 71.d6 Be6 71…f2 72.Rf5 g3 73.d7 g2 74.d8Q g1Q 75.Qf6+ Qg7+ 76.Qxg7# 72.Re5 Bd7 73.Re7 f2 74.Rxd7 Kg8 75.Rg7+ Kf8 76.d7 1-0

Exercises

E08.07 Yusupov – Spraggett

Quebec 1989

White to move and win

E08.08 Vitiugov – Bacrot

Ohrid 2009

Where is Black’s Achilles heel?

E08.09 Adler – L’Ami

Germany 2005

How to defend with Black?

E08.10 Grischuk – Caruana

Khanty-Mansiysk 2015

Find the only move to draw for White!

8.4 R+B vs. R+N and the bishop plays for a win

The endgame rook and bishop against rook and knight is called the Fischer endgame, when the side with the bishop has the advantage. Its name stems from the many instructive games of the American world champion with this ending. The following guideline shall help you too see if the side with the bishop is better or not:

(1) Rook and bishop usually cooperate as long-range pieces better together than rook and knight. Often they profit from an open position. Furthermore, the rook somewhat compensates for the blindness of the bishop on the other color complex.

(2) Pawns only on one wing are often good for the slower knight.

(3) Fluid pawn structures are often good for the bishop, as it can then choose the way to use them to restrict the knight. Broken structures and weak color complexes can help the knight to find outposts.

(4) The knight always wants to have control so that it has time for its slow maneuvers.

(5) If the bishop has the advantage, it will often use zugzwang, restriction methods and exchanges to make progress. So often the pawns should be placed to complement the bishop to restrict the knight further and so that the pawns are not in the way of the bishop.

In the following famous classic Fischer give an instructive demonstration:

08.12 Fischer – Taimanov

Vancouver 1971

24…b6? This weakens the light squares too much. Kasparov gives 24…Kd6! 25.a4 (25.Re3 Rb8; 25.Bxb7 Rb8 26.Bxa6 Rxb2) 25…b5 26.a5 c4 27.c3 (27.Bb7? Rb8 28.Bxa6? runs into 28…Nd5) 27…Rb8 with good drawing chances. 25.Bf1! Fischer immediately exploits the mistake and increases the pressure on the light squares. 25…a5 26.Bc4 Rf8 27.Kg2 Kd6 28.Kf3 Nd7 29.Re3 Nb8 30.Rd3+ Kc7

31.c3!? Fischer restricts the knight and complements his bishop – a typical attacking strategy. 31…Nc6 32.Re3 Kd6 33.a4 Ne7

34.h3 Such a move in the “do not rush” style is strong psychologically. Black can only sit and wait. 34…Nc6 35.h4 with the plan h5, g4, Kg3-h4, g5 followed by Kg4 35…h5 36.Rd3+ Kc7

37.Rd5! Fischer forces Taimanov to place more pawns on light squares 37…f5 38.Rd2 Rf6 39.Re2 Kd7 40.Re3 g6 41.Bb5 Rd6 Taimanov’s sealed move 42.Ke2

42…Kd8? This allows Fischer to simplify into a won bishop vs. knight endgame. Andrew Soltis’ suggestion 42…Rf6 is called for: 43.Kd3

and now not 43…Kd8?, but 43…Rd6+ 44.Kc4 Rf6 when White should be winning in the long run, but matters are not easy (see analysis by Charles Sullivan in Endgame Corner 106 in the Archives of ChessCafe.com).

44.Bxc6! Rxc6 45.Kc4 Rd6 46.Kb5 Kd7 (46…Rd2 47.Kxb6 Rxb2+ 48.Kxc5 Kd7 49.Rd3+ Ke7 50.Rd6+–) 47.b3 Kc7 48.c4 Kd8 49.Ka6 Rc6 50.Kb7 Rf6 51.Rd3+ Ke7 52.Kc7 Re6 53.Rd7+ Ke8 54.Rd6 Re3 55.Rxg6 Rxb3 56.Rxb6 Rb4 57.Rb5 Rxa4 58.Rxc5+–

43.Rd3! Kc7 44.Rxd6 Kxd6 45.Kd3

Black would have a fortress, if he could transfer his knight to d6, but as he does not have control, he does not find the time for the regrouping.

45…Ne7 46.Be8 Kd5 47.Bf7+ Kd6 48.Kc4 Kc6 49.Be8+ Kb7 50.Kb5 Nc8 51.Bc6+ The hasty 51.Bxg6?? runs into 51…Nd6# 51…Kc7 52.Bd5 Ne7 53.Bf7 Kb7

Now Fischer uses the sharp endgame weapon zugzwang again and again. 54.Bb3 Ka7 55.Bd1 Kb7 56.Bf3+ Kc7 57.Ka6 Nc8 Activating the knight with 57…Ng8 58.Bd5 Nf6 59.Bf7 Ne4 does not help as the bishop is far superior in the coming fight on both wings, e.g., 60.Bxg6 Nxg3 61.Be8 Ne2 62.Bxh5 Nxf4 63.Bf3 Ng6 64.h5 Ne5 65.h6+– 58.Bd5 Ne7 59.Bc4 Nc6 60.Bf7 Ne7

Now comes the final zugzwang: 61.Be8! Kd8 62.Bxg6! Nxg6 63.Kxb6 Kd7 64.Kxc5 Ne7 65.b4 axb4 66.cxb4 Nc8 67.a5 Nd6 68.b5 Ne4+ 69.Kb6 Kc8 70.Kc6 Kb8 71.b6 1-0

Exercises

E08.11 Jakovenko – Rakhmanov

Dagomys 2010

How did Jakovenko dominate Black?

E08.12 Shirov - Bacrot

Odessa 2010

White to move and win

E08.13 Schebler – Boensch

Muelheim 2007

How to defend with Black?

E08.14 Seirawan – Ramirez Alvarez

St. Louis 2012

How to defend with Black?

8.5 R+B vs. R+N and the knight plays for a win

The endgame rook and knight against rook and bishop, in which the side with the knight has the advantage, is sometimes called Andersson endgame because of the many impressive victories of the famous Swedish grandmaster. The following guidelines should help you to determine if the knight has the advantage:

(1) The side with the knight has full control, so that the knight has time for its maneuvers.

(2) The bishop is restricted by its own pawns or “hits only air.”

(3) The color complex which is not controlled by the bishop is weak.

(4) The knight finds strong outpost squares because of the pawn structure. Often a broken pawn structure favors the knight and a fluid one the bishop.

So the following position is slightly better for White; Black must defend very carefully:

08.13 Andersson – Franco Ocampos

Buenos Aires 1979

17…Bf6? Waiting passively is often fatal against the knight. Black must try to open the position to get dynamic counterplay: 17…fxe4 18.Rae1 Rhf8 19.Rhf1 b5 20.Nd2 Rd5 21.Nxe4 Kd7 and Black’s drawing chances are good. As Jacob Aagaard put it, people before structure. The activity of the pieces and their prospects are more important than, e.g., the number of pawn islands. 18.a4! Andersson starts his powerplay on the light squares. 18…Bg7 19.Rhe1 Rhe8 20.b5

20…f4? This further concession makes Black’s task hopeless. 20…fxe4 was called for, but White is still better after 21.Rxe4 Rf8 22.f3 Rf4 23.Rae1 Rxe4 24.Rxe4 Rd5 21.a5 bxa5 22.Rxa5 b6 23.Ra7 Bf6 24.Rea1 Re6 25.R1a6 Rde8 26.Kb3! Bd8 27.Ra8+ Kd7 28.Ra2 Bf6 29.Rd2+ Ke7 30.Ra7 Rc8 31.Rd5 Ke8 32.h3 Ke7

33.Nb2 White has full control and all the time in the world to reposition his knight. 33…Ke8 34.Nd3 Bg7 34…c6 35.Rdd7 cxb5 36.Nb4 Ra8! (36…Re7? 37.Nd5 Rxd7 38.Nxf6+ Ke7 39.Nxd7+–) 37.Rxh7 Rxa7 38.Rxa7 Bd8 39.Nd5+– 35.c4 Bf6 36.c5 bxc5 37.Nxc5 Re7 38.Ra6 Bh8 39.Kc4 Bg7 40.f3 Rb8 41.Ne6 Bf6 42.Rc6 1-0

The next case show a typical invasion on the weak color complex:

08.14 Jobava – Miton

Skanderborg 2005

25.Ke3 Ke7 26.Ng5 h6 27.Ne4 Rc7 27…Bd7 28.Rxc8 Bxc8 29.Nd6 Bd7 30.Kd4+– (Krasenkow) 28.g4!

This marks Black’s h-pawn as weakness in typical style. 28…Kd8 29.Nf6 a5 30.h4 Kc8 31.Ng8! h5 32.gxh5 gxh5 33.Nf6 Kb7 34.Nxh5 b4 35.Rc1 Rd7 36.Nf6 Rd8 37.h5 Bb5 38.Kf4 Rd3 39.Rh1 1-0

The case with only one attacking pawn can be extremely complex. The longest win is DTC 265 moves and the following practical example is already very deep:

08.15 Carlsen – Shirov

Morelia/Linares 2008

64.Kd5 White wins DTC in 79 moves. 64…Rb1 65.Kc6?! This sets the DTC clock back to an amazing 133 moves. 65.Nc5! is called for. 65…Rc1+ 66.Nc5 Bb8?! After 66…Kf6!?, White needs 131 moves. 67.Rd5 Ba7 68.Kd7 Bb8 69.Ne6 Kf6 70.Rc5 Rb1 71.Nd8 Bh2 72.Rc6+ Ke5 73.Rc1 Rb3 74.Rc2 Bf4 75.Kc6 Kf5 76.Rc5+ Kf6 77.Kd7 Rb1 78.Kc8 Bh2 79.Rc6+ Ke5?! A blunder, but Black is lost anyway, e.g., 79…Kf5!? 80.Ne6 Rg1! 81.Rc2+– (81.Nc7? Rg8+ 82.Kd7 Rg7+=) 80.b8Q+ 1-0

Exercises

E08.15 Anand – Gelfand

Moscow 2012

How did Anand convert?

E08.16 Aseev – Inarkiev

Elista 2001

What is White’s most precise move?

E08.17 Sakaev – Meister

Sochi 2004

Which master move did Meister uncork?