chess online

Chess Online

Divide and you will find!
Wild name, real matters
[ Sign up | Log in | Guest ] (beta)
ccmcacollister ♡ 57 ( +1 | -1 )
ccmCACollister's Book:Secrets & Wisdom of Chess?! I just learned something. Thought, that's worth remembering. So if I can be permitted, I'd like to start my "Book" right here. Kind of be talking to myself probably. Maybe a few people who like to peek(welcome!) But feel free to offer and comments, of course. So this is what I just learned, to start on a lite, but 100% true of course, note.

#1. Do NOT play blitz or 10 minute games with abdominal cramps! (Unless of course, you Need the Excuse and ARE NOT afraid to use it.!). Any worthy Excuses out there...?(Tho to my mind, at this moment, be assurred none can be worthier!)

More: Chess
commodore ♡ 17 ( +1 | -1 )
No Blitz or 10 min games after two 2 litre Pepsi's. You are allowed to grip or tap your foot, but pamper's may be best? I had his King in my sights but I had to roll up my jeans and sit on my chair and shoot I lost focus...
More: Chess
ccmcacollister ♡ 419 ( +1 | -1 )
Question from Chess Student (#B-1) Q#04032004-1(B-1)

IN WHAT ORDER DO YOU PLACE "Force, Space, Tempi, and Pawn Structure?"

.......All are important elements in conducting a Chess game. Yet the most critical to me, you forgot to mention. Being "MOBILITY". Mobility: The ability to move, shift, focus & concentrate the singular and/or combined force of ones pieces upon the chosen select points desired, particularly within the opposing camp when attacking (within ones own camp to defend), in order to exploit existing weakness or of structure or placement(s) or to create or provoke new weakness in such place(s), which we hope will lead to material advantage or checkmate, whether that be immediate or as an eventual product of over- whelming accumulated advantages.
We might view a game of Chess as being a lesser version of the proverbial contest between "Immoveable Object" & "Irresistable Force". Similar concept, just not so Immovable nor Irresistable, for us. A bit more nearly for GM's. Where you might say there are those from the Immovable School: Capablance, Flohr, Seirwan,
Petrosian, Philador, Kmoch and others. Which School may be more accurately term-
that of Structure, whose disciples are known as "positional players". Or "strategic", although both are something of a misnomer, since in fact all players use strategy.
...And those in the Irresistable School: Kasparov, Tal, Alekhine, Morphy, Bronstein, Vehlimirovic, Bronstein, Spassky, Anderssen, Morphy, Pillsbury, Mednis, & more. Which may be considered that of "Mobility". Players generally considered to be, so called "tacticians". Where again,all players use tactics as well. (So our terms about players are differentiating only upon degrees of emphasis in truth.)
These 'tactical' players stress the rapid (development) & intentional pursuit & maxi-mimzation of Piece Activity (initiative). Generally are more willing to accept greater degree of structural impairmant to produce more mobility & attendant initiative.
Steinitz, as many players today, converted from more the latter to more the form-er, in the course of his Chess career. Swashbuckler in fact, to Father of a School of Principals still vital unto this day. Still stressing development but add more to the
consideration of the "Structure"...
Although becoming more emphatic myself about Structure as time goes by, I lean
still, more to the active camp. Mobility is my leige. The concepts of Development, Tempo & Space are FACTORS in the attainment of MOBILITY. First must be the Development, thereby increasing the number of square choices for future moves of a piece. Call this "scope". A N has least scope from a Rook-one SQ for EG, = 2. In addition to scope, development may also increase the Range of a piece. Thus it is
more able to Reach more SQ's further into the opposing camp. A Bg2 has plenty of
Reach, able to move to the 8th rank if unimpeded. But its scope within the "enemy"
camp = only 4 SQ's. On Be4 it would still have Range to the 8th rank (also to the 7th) but increased scope to opp's SQ's of 7.
This is why Centralization of pieces is considered so desireable, when they can be placed & maintained in such outposts. Which also gives them the ability to strike in multiple directions from there & shift between fields of play more readily. From Q-side to K-side, or Wing to center or vice-versa. Providing that they also have the Space to do so. Space consisting of SQ's they can traverse or occupy without being captured or impeded.
The player having the greater Space in a region may be able to more easily shift his attacks, than a defender who is "cramped", or just possessing less space (or less useful space), can adequately shift his pieces in response, to be positioned where they can perform the needed defensive task. In addition to Space & Scope & Reach; there is yet another Factor that contributes to the Overall Mobility of the players army and that is a preponderence of pieces. Whether this is due to material
advantage possessed upon the board (pieces/pawns still in the game), or simply in
the critical area/field of action, or preponderence of such pieces sufficiently mobile to be USEFUL within the given region.

**************************************** be continued (*)^(*)
ccmcacollister ♡ 513 ( +1 | -1 )
To #B-1;Q's re EGm's; K vs K+RP, to draw... . . . Already we discussed Basic Technique of drawing with your lone King vs opp having K & either Rook Pawn. For our examples we will always use the BLACK h-pawn(aka his King Rook Pawn/ KRP). And WT will defend. Note that all RANKS are being referred to by their Algebraic Notation Rank Numbers. {Thus BL does not Q on "HIS" "Eighth Rank" but rather upon "THE" "First Rank". Whereas however, WT is said to Queen upon the "Eighth Rank".}
1___Get your defending K onto the pawn's file, in front of the RP.
2___Then simplest is to move your K to the Pawn's queening square {referred to henceforth by the concise notation of "h1/Q", tho the term "Promotion Square" would be more accurate.} Then with each move, keep the K in contact with that square from those adjacent, or upon the h1/Q-SQ itself. Thus in this, our first example the 4 important squares are:
.....................the h1/Q-SQ and the 3 Adjacents = h1/Q-SQ, h2, g1, g2
3___Realize that with the WT King upon any one of those square (legally at least), there is NO POSSIBLE WAY for BL to ever Promote his lone Rook pawn. Regardless of anywhere that the Opp.'s King and/or pawn may be located. Unlike any other files on the board, the R-files are unique in those aspects and in that:
* * * *
(A)King opposition, or lack of it, is meaningless involving R-pawn promotions & defense of. [With one exception, to be covered as RP Technique, part 2, immediately following his one. But that Exception will never apply anytime that the defending King stands upon the h-file or g-file, ahead of the h-pawn's advance.
* * * * * *
(B)The attacking King's position as to whether in front, behind, or beside his pawn, makes no difference in the outcome. Or whether there is any square or not between the Attaker king and RP if he IS in front of it. It will draw regardless.
* * * * * * * * *
(C)Makes no difference which square defending K is upon (h1), or (g1), at the time that the pawn advances from Rank 3 to Rank 2; nor whether or not it gives "Check"
in so advancing to WT's 2nd rank. It will draw irregardless.

Please note however, all these things mentioned in A,B,C here can be VERY important when any other type pawn is involved instaed ! And also if the K+RP involves possession of a piece to assist the Queening effort. Where again, more care needs/should be taken. In the case of a piece + RP, especially by the advantaged side, lest he throw away a 1/2 point result.
Having refreshed now upon the K vs K+RP Basic Tech. We must now consider this procedure applied in actual tmt play situation, under a timeclock. In an OTB Sudden~Death Event, reaching the situation above, and defender in contact with h1/Q SQ, he should be able to obtain a Draw result by petitioning the TD for it,& receive one by the 'insufficient chances' Rule. But if TD did not allow that ??! Or TC is not S~D but opp wants you to run out of time, EG you are sticking to h1, but he keeps his pawn back on h3 & moves his K 49 (or as many as possible to avoid 3 repetitions of position.) times between each pawn move to avoid 50 Move Draw Rule while Eating your Time in the process.
* * *
Unless you have a Fischer-Allegro timing clock in use, then in that case, you must start walking your defending King up the Rook File, to the pawn, as far as you can. Right up until he must back his King to avoid making 3 time position repetition (which you must watch for and claim that draw if it happens. {And you are more than justified to claim it. For this dead-drawn ending really should not be played out in such way as Attacker has decided to do, IMO. Trying to require dozens of moves between each step the pawn makes (Which restarts the 50 Move Rule count of moves each time the pawn moves.} It is "Legal" most places. But a bit overboard of Sportsmanship IMO. And in fact, was unacceptible in WBCA{World Blitz Chess Assoc./of Walter Browne I believe.} I've read in past. *>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> [FYI SIDEBAR{Captures also restart that Rules "Count" in positions where there is more pieces on, just FYI}] >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
.....When your K then does make contact with the pawn, his K will have to remain to keep it guarded, thus his extraneous moves are limited most severely, since each time you can touch the pawn, he too must use one of the only 2 square possible for him to have contact with it at the same time your king does.Thus he will be forced to move the pawn forward toward promotion, in order that he may
shange the position enough to restart the "Draw by 3-Times Repetition" Rule, instead of only having to move it to restart the "50 Move Draw" Rule.
......Once your King is on h1, and he must move pawn to h2, you are stalemated, for a Draw. Or if your K is on g1 when he must move his pawn to h2, then you play Kh1 whereupon, he must move Kh3 to hold his pawn, which makes the stalemate Draw at that instant. Or he must abandon his pawn, in which case you capture it & then have a Draw due to insuficient Mating-Materials. [Tues.July 20,2004 CAC]
Next will be K vs K+ RP, To Draw; Using Tech#2: Opposition Exception.\ It will be followed by Techniques when a Bishop is added with the RP.

ccmcacollister ♡ 269 ( +1 | -1 )
To GK Players:Please do not Delete Thread. It would be appreciated. It's a legitimate attempt to help some GK players improve their game, understanding & knowlege. And hopefully, so increase their enjoyment of our game. This is the place where I comment upon Questions from my few students, now in the Class C to B ratings range. Or publish here some of the techniques aor info for them to learn. Thus many different Chess related areas may appear. Some may be based upon things already begun to be discussed by us, or be continued in private, if things should seem a bit disjointed at times.
...I welcome any others to comment, as you wish. Discussion with the Webmaster
has indicated this concept as acceptible Forum use. By that I do not imply my own writings carry any endorsement. Rather that he wrote to me that prior to a multi-player msg'g method being done (as he has something of the nature being worked on now. I was told.) at least,that the Forum can be used for such dissemination(s) to one's students of the game, tho diferent teams, as long as the material remains in the Rules; Topical, and no Off-Topic. In order to contact them en masse. (It helps me too, saving the info in a trusted place that future referral can be made to it, if similar Q is asked me. And where it will not be eaten when my ever crashing accessware wipes out & requires reincarnation) I did learn from him now, that I've apparently held a misconception of Forum Topicality. So here is what I believe I have learnt re GK, lest any other be confused too. Then maybe a Privlege Revocation may one day be avoided . * * * *
I asked him re a thread I did not really see how it'd be "untopical" (meaning "not topic related). & so referred to it as 'called "untopical" to GK Forum. At which was told it's not "Untopical", rather"OFF-TOPIC" completely. Whereby things clarified for me. For I'd thought Thread closures & Revocations to be saying & meaning untop -tical meaning "untopical", as "not topical/not related to GK". But in fact, my new interpretation is "OFF-TOPIC" is of broader meaning. So, not only things not/untopi- also include things representing Topics: Undesired/Proscribed/Prohibited.
Thus I feel a better grasp of Forum needs. And of keeping seperate Forums as homogenous & undiluted as possible, so as serve the advertising function they perform on Google & all the sites recieving samples of them.
Regards, Craig A.C.
PS:/ Please don't be shy, if you see any advice, analysis, or theory etc of mine here that you question or disagree with. Especially if we've not agreed on Chess in the past. Speak up, and together we can seek the truth of it, for those who seek to learn it. If I err,I'd prefer to know & have my learners know what's correct,than
have it get covered-up. I know I've been wrong before . . .
. . . What a bad day that was! (But see,you do gotta be able to handle a wee little bit o humor from time to time on this Thread. )
ccmcacollister ♡ 455 ( +1 | -1 )
BOOKS I'M READING/aor Some read.... It's like an Invasion! Everyone is Thinking, Talking, Playing like Silmen now !! Or an epidemic. And the only cure, is to read MORE of his books, . . . . . !! But you get your money's worth from him, I'd have to say. And that's good, because it's like something you just gotta have, anyway! Otherwise everyone else will be speaking Silman, and YOU won't know the language ...[8-(
>>>Been readin Silmans book this month "Amateurs Mind" and want to say I really like it. It really seems to have good impact too. Because I note some particular players of Upper GK ranges forum posting lately with a lot of Silman Influence. Which to me, helps bear out what I've been thinking. That it is probably a Gold Mine to players Class "c" & "B" players. Silver mine to Class "A"s & Even those Expert or Master players seem to be able to pick up ideas from it. Thats not just review but actually some concepts previously unknown to their game. I can say that for myself, I know. I have'nt quite finished it yet. But what I've seen, To me it is the best book I've seen of the Improve Your Play & Understanding Type in 20 years. (True I don't read many such. But the book still has a special feel to it) In 70's I was very partial to GM L.Evans "Chess Catechism" (sp??). And this book gives me the same rare feeling of "Good Read". It is informative, very understandable, entertaining at times, & well worth the $20ish cost, I thought !!
Maybe 2 areas I might be a little critical of it, just to prove nothing is Perfect, and that human need to prove it so:) [A] His students are given numbers, not names. But some of his comments to/about them some may find a bit offending to them, or exasperated with them. That might be thought he considers them not so bright. And it is easy to miss the part that reassures the reader that such is not the case. Carefully read, one does find where he admits he is aware that truly if the ideas he presents have not caught on; that it really is a problem of him, the teacher, not getting it across well enough. That really he does not blame them, but he is exasperated with himself that he thought he was getting across with some things but he'd later find did Not in fact "Take" in mind of the students. So critically, might be said, for his own reputation, he might have made it more clear that he knew his responsibility & was actually not laying it upon the students' heads.
[B].....The second thing. . . actually falls short, because he IS SO successful at conveying his methods of play & extensive use of comparison of primarily dynamic "Imbalances" between the 2 sides in Plan Formation. The flaw, that he actually directs some away from even considering at times certain Static Flaws aka structural weaknesses, when staring one in the face is an absolutely critical one.Such as a QGD analyzed, by some Silman readers, we all get so looking at dynamics, that no one even mentions a rather critical weakness of c7 square. That almost in itself dictates the course for the game. Tho anlysis showed it was "seen"
by em(very good players), just everyone took it too for granted to mention, I believe. Which was humorous because that is exactly the very thing that Silman works against players doing with the positions Dynamics; the "imbalances" he stresses. But really the humorous little occurance may actually be a tribute to his
ability to get readers focused and enthused about it, where he wants then to be, that they temporarily forget about or unconsciously set aside other things. :)
......It sounds to me like his previous book "Reassess Your Chess" probably does need to be read in addition to this one. Maybe before ?! And would not surprise me to see Structural considerations done there ? I do plan to order it next time & see for myself. Along with a Second Kotov book I'll get at that time.
.....But the Kotov book I read already, Think Like a Grandmaster. I would very, very highly recommend as being invaluable for learning how to analyze by branched
trees, efficiently. As well as determining Candidate move for consideration in the first place. It seems to me that this would be the perfect read jto follow Amateurs Mind with. Both of which I'd recommend to my students.
.....Of course, still among the best I've ever read are:"Modern Chess Brilliancies /L.Evans"; "My 60 Memorable Games/RJF"; 200 Open Games/ David Bronstein, and Tal's 200 games of forgotten title.
baseline ♡ 7 ( +1 | -1 )
ccmcacollister welcome back, I'll have a reply as soon as my eyesight returns.
ccmcacollister ♡ 72 ( +1 | -1 )
K+RP vs K draw; Tech 2 Using Oppos./& Correction Correction: re Amateurs Mind: See it was only $14.00. Great Bargain!

WTKf3 / BLKh2 & ph4 and has the Move
Now we know that if WT gets his K in front of the pawn, or in contact with h1, he Draws. But what to do, for the (Evil) BL K holds sway. Fortunately another factor comes to play. Now Kg4 allows h3/wins. So rather obviously ...
1.Kf2 h3 or ...Kh3 permits Kg1, in contact with h1, which contact always draws.
2.Kf1 Kh1 or WT gets to g1 again
3.Kf2 Kh2
4.Kf1 Kh1
5.Kf2 and now Kh2 permits 6.Kf1 & draw by 3 time repetition. Thank goodness, for clearly it was Going Nowhere!
5... h2 Oops, BL has stalemated himself!
And so we leave it to Baseline to let us know ... Is this a Draw?
Or must White Claim IT? Or must WT move?
If WT moves, Kf1 Is it a stalemate? A 3X rep? Is 6.Ke1 an Unstalemate? 8-)
In the meantime, we send condolences & hope for return of his vision. I appears he had accident. 8-(
ccmcacollister ♡ 204 ( +1 | -1 )
Mobility / Draw vs RP Continuation to Mobility discussed above in post #1 was made in the Chess Forum thread: "The Most Important Element" by Wadava, along with thoughts of others about it &/or Tactics.

Finally re K vs K&RP :
Pwn on h6 & BLKh3, WTKf3 Anyone to move. Any similar position is a Draw, WT must simply hold the BL K upon the h-file, until WT can get around him to come in contact with h1 himself, or walk toward the pawn if he could win it by reaching it.
But error can be made by walking toward the pawn. Whereas renewing threats tto attain h1contact always Draw. For EG here with WT forced to move, he can play Kf2 threatening to reach g1 and BL must play Kh2 to stop that Draw. 2.Kf3 allows
2....h5 3.Kf2 still draws, but 3.Kf4 would have lost to ...h4 4.Kg4 or Kg5 ....h3 winning. so simplest way from 1.Kf2 Kh2 2.Kf1 (WT will play Kg1 whenever allowed, then Kh1) ....h5 3.Kf2 h4 4.Kf1 h3 5.Kf2 Kh1 6.Kf1 (Kf3???) Kh2 7.Kf2 Kh1 8.Kf1 looks fAmiliar again. And of course there is the ....h2 stalemate again too.

Add a BL Bb6 to the board tho, with ph3,Kh1 and WTKf1 tho and one of the few positions where the side with the pawn can win now, though his B is not the same color as the Queening SQ h1. If WT's move he would have to permit room for BL to play Kg1 or Kg2 here, to Queen. Or if BL's move then using a tempo makes it WT's move & same win.

In general tho, It is considered the "Wrong Bishop" to have if it is not of the same color complex as the RP's Queening SQ. If the WT King were on h1 here and BL's K,dark SQ B, and h-pawn are anywhere (now that WTK has contact with h1) it is a Draw and Pawn con never Queen. Attempts all fail, or produce stalemate. Try it & see.

On the other hand, to have a WT SQ B, the same color has h1 wins. Even tho WTK be in contact with h1. EG now put Kh1 and BL peices = Kg3, ph3, Bc2
WT to move 1.Kg1 Be4 2.Kf1 etc. 0-1
BL to move & win 1....Be4+ 2.Kg1 h2+ queens
BL to move & BLUNDER = 1....h2 ????? Stalemate

DO NOT STALEMATE WT by playing pawn to h2 prematurely !
If you follow a rule of not advancing the pawn to your 7th rank, before your B controls the Queening SQ, you will never stalemate here. Or if not that rule, then "never be careless". In which case you could play:

That said, If WT were on Kg1 to start, then 1....h2+ 2.Kh1 Be4++MATE, its true.
Or by the first Rule above, you would play: 1...Be4 2.Kf1 h2

So remember you want your B the same color as your R-pawns promotion SQ, to win.
ccmcacollister ♡ 442 ( +1 | -1 )
How to "Think Endgame" ... Today I was going to do, drawing with RvsR&P, the std precision technique. But again misplaced the trusty Keres endgame book. So instead, a more general tech.
....How to think Endgame? A few years back, I offered public advice in our small local Chessletter, as my best on endgames: "PLAY SHORT GAMES!". That & belief the Chess muse created endgames specifically for gods to enjoy watching our Chess struggles, with tears & amusement, sum-up my feelings about endings.
.....Yet, sometimes things get out of hand, and one must play an endgame. So when that One Step Plan fails, the following 3 Step Back-up comes into play.
.....This advice, I first heard from (or about) Capablanca has been infinately helpful to me. That we should .....THINK SCHEMATICALLY, IN ENDGAMES. This is achieved by visualizing the position as you would like it to be, so as for you to be winning it.
Where SHOULD those pawns and pieces be? Then figure out how to go about producing that wonderful new position, from where you now are. With consideration of the opp's chances to thwart you, naturally. Then go ahead and Win It. 1-2-3
In corr Chess, I have developed a technique which has been very helpful in deciding which endgames to steer toward, while still in the late middlegame. So simple. When I start to get that feeling of endgame impending, it is good to steer it toward one that is favorable, or barring that, at least a comfortable one, for me.
Often the pawn structure will tell much, if not dictate what type ending to strive for. For EG things like isolani, doubled isolani, many pawn islands & pawn disjointedness are usually quite bad for the defender in a R+P's ending. A very locked-up pawn structure may indicate your N will be better than his Bishop. Or vice versa if a very open, centerless, 2-wing pawn situation. But the following tech tends to make things even more apparent.
From your present position, simply begin to look at what engames are produced by then and there lifting each of your pieces, and types of pieces off the board. Leave just King's on, then just Rook's, Just minors, just a knight, etc. Then see if there become pawns that are indefensible, or promotable in that ending? Does it appraoch any technically won position of that type? Etc. It is VERY good to know which pieces you should or should not trade. And that factor can make the difference between a win or loss.
Recently, I saw a game where it was indicated that leaving Q & a minor, would be quite fqvorable and produce indefensible pawn(s) for opponent. While leaving Rooks only, would be the least desireable thing, even unfavorable or dangerous. This information added to prior understanding that the position of that time would be good in the way that, in general, removing any pieces would tend to increase advantage. Yet potential to develop an attack existed, should the opp try to totally "leave it alone" or avoid all trades. Yet initiating his own attack would insure trades would happen. (Still I thought that quite likely , since most players find it very hard to "let alone" as much as possible. And for the very good reason that few positions allow for that possiblity, without dire consequences.) And indeed this was the route things went. But the Removal technique was instrumental to clarify to not enter that one particular Rook ending. And in showing the most favorable pieces to leave on. And may help in allowing endgame possibilities to be examined as early as possible. Perhaps before the opp has begun such considerations seriously.
Beside the fact of knowing that reaching one or two endgame types, in a game, may lead to a win . . . it can be useful knowlege even if not reached. Since presumably the opp will have to try to avoid going into that ending and so such can figure into your present plans of attacking or whatever. And maybe lead to other types of advantage, suchas if he has to lose tempos trying to avoid a particular trade-off. And also, there may be moves and pawn play, in the mean time that will allow for you to make that "bad endgame" less bad, or good endgame better, should they occur. Just a little easier to walk in the light than in darkness.
Good Chess to you!
ccmcacollister ♡ 23 ( +1 | -1 )
Addition to Schematic Thinking.... in the endgame. I also meant to say, it also includes then, the use of logic, and of subvocalizing appropriate questions to yourself as needed; besides considering the ideal position to pursue. Anything helping you to further clarify the task at hand.
ccmcacollister ♡ 52 ( +1 | -1 )
Quicktip: 2 connected passed pawns... on the 7th rank can never be stopped by Rook alone, no matter where it is. If they are on the 6th rank, it cannot stop them unless the rook is "on the move" and can immediately capture one, no matter where it is. (OK: exception; unless "where it is" happens to be mating the other King!) Of course having a King or other piece near matters, but that's not a "Rook alone".
And in general, adding a third or more pawns passed & connected may increase the distance from the 8th rank, from which the rook can't stop them.
ccmcacollister ♡ 234 ( +1 | -1 )
3 Pawn Standoff, Create or Prevent passed pawn . This is a technique useful mostly in K+P endings, with Kings distant. Suppose we have 3 pawns on our 4th rank as WT, directly accross from 3 of his on his 3rd rank.
Please put them on a4,b4,c4 and a6,b6,c6. It would be desirable for WT to make a passer here, being closer than BL, he will then queen first. (For to assure creation of the passer, he must not only sac a pawn but also gives BL his own passed pawn.
But none of that will matter compared to WT's new Queen. To make it, WT must have the move. The ONLY correct move is the middle pawn, to make it. Thus
1.b5 now if 1...axb5 then the crosscorner pawn responds with 2.c5! That is the only correct move also.
or 1.b5 cxb5 2.a5!
But if BL were to move, he would like to STOP that! To do so, starts the same...
1....b5 2.axb5 axb5 or.....1.....b5 2.cxb5 cxb5 and BL has averted WT from a passer.
Some good general concepts in K+P endings:
a)a protected passed pawn very often wins when otherwise material is even. At times even from a material deficit, since the enemy king must always stay close enought to stop the passer. And its protector can never be taken, or it runs to Queen.
b)an OUTSIDE passed pawn also is likely to win. Especially if it hold the opp king to it when there are pawns on both wings, so your K can then consume the other wing.
c)In general, it is considered better for pawns to be left unadvanced for defenive purposes, and advanced only for offensive ones.
d)In these endings try to avoid allowing situations where opp can restrain 2 of your pawns with one of his. Or 3 of yours with 2 of him. Example of the first:
BL pawns on a6 and b7, one WT pawn on a5 would hold both BL's at bay.
e)when kings get in opposition and both sides are fighting for tempos, using up all pawn moves by one or both so a king must yeild passage to the other, it helps if you have kept one or more pawns on their origianal SQ's with the option to move one or 2 spaces, and to save these for last, using up one move pawn pushes elsewhere first. Then the Option pawns left can counter any such Option pawns he may have. If you have more, you will decide the issue. Even just having mMORE
pawn moves available than the opp tho, may in itself be enough to win for that side, even tho they be one move pawns.
badhorse ♡ 28 ( +1 | -1 )
Thank you I just want to thank ccmac for taking the time to help everyone at GK improve their chess. I have learned a lot from him and as this thread shows he must enjoy sharing not only his chess knowledge but his love of the game as well.
ccmac, I thank you.
daleman ♡ 14 ( +1 | -1 )
thank you i will thank you as must have taken a lot of time to write this much, and you did it only to help others. thanks.
snakeplissken ♡ 32 ( +1 | -1 )
"If you wish good advice, consult an old man."

Although I like these messages in general, i prefer "very simple directives" - and so i can recommend strongly to read Mr. Chepukaitis point of view.

But thats a matter of taste - as always.