Comments on: “All King and Pawn Endgames are Confusing!”

By: Steve

Steve — Mon, 19 Mar 2007 16:22:58 +0000

Thanks, DG.

By: DG

DG — Mon, 19 Mar 2007 16:10:00 +0000

In this case the plan of transposing to a K+P ending is fine, e.g. 1…Rxe3+ 2.Kxe3 hxg4 3.hxg4 Ke7 4.Kd4 Kd6 and you’ll use the a-pawn to deflect White’s King while you win the c-pawn and/or create another passer on the Kingside.

By: Steve

Steve — Mon, 19 Mar 2007 01:49:33 +0000

Blunderprone – Thanks for your comments. I had planned to play hxg4 immediately after the exchange on e3, and then move my king to d6.

By: Blunderprone

Blunderprone — Sun, 18 Mar 2007 23:39:06 +0000

King position plays an important role. I would have done three things first. 1) simplify the king side pawns with hxg4 2) Next I would have improved my king position knowing as a rule of thumb to keep it off teh same color of my rook to avoid pesky Knight forks. Lastly I would have advanced the a-pawns as far as I could. Then and only then would I have given back the exchange. Simplifying the king side first neutralizes that side of the board. You still had a pawn majority on that side. Without the knight and rook, the outside passed pawn (on teh a-file) is a strategic weapon. You andvance it as far as possible expending White’s resources to defend it. It then allows you to go in on the opposite side. King position is important in this as well. So creating these dynamics or exploiting them first before exchanging R v N would have been my option.