FIDE Surveys – Dejan Bojkov

1

Dejan Bojkov:
Know-how in the Pawn endgames

Concept
The knowledge of exact positions is the
cornerstone in the understanding of the
pawn endgames. The pawn endgames have
their own specifics. Contrary to the other
endgames where we can use approximate
evaluations like slightly better/worse or
much better/worse without definite
conclusion, in the pawn endgames we use
only three evaluations - win/draw/loss.
The lack of material enables us to calculate
the lines till the end but this is easier said
than done. At the end of the game players
are usually tired and tend to make more
mistakes. The time troubles also do not
contribute to the proper calculations.
To sum the things up - pawn endgames can
be easily compared to mathematical task
where you have only one true answer. In
order to find this answer the knowledge of
a concrete theorem is needed in
mathematics, while in chess that would be
the knowledge of a concrete exact position.
Let's have a look of a case where one of
the opponents is lacking essential exact
knowledge. The following game was
played at the first Metropolitan open
tournament in Los Angeles three years ago.

Langer M. : Panjwani R.
Los Angeles 2011

XIIIIIIIIY
9-+-+-+-+0
9+-+p+p+-0
9-+-+-+-+0
9+-+-zP-+-0
9-+-mK-+-+0
9+-+-+-mk-0
9-+-+-+-+0
9+-+-+-+-0
xiiiiiiiiy

The player who has the white pieces is a
strong national master Mikhail Langer. His
opponent is a young and promising IM

from Canada, Raja Panjwani. It was
actually Raja who showed me the game
immediately after it was over. It is a
strange coincidence as you will see in a
moment. In the diagrammed position
White chose the natural looking:
80.Ke3?
The most natural reply appears to be the
first and the last mistake in the endgame.
The normal opposition is wrong here as
White cannot keep it up on all the squares.
White needed to choose the distant
opposition - 80.Kc3! This was the only
way to draw. For example: 80...Kf4
81.Kd4 Kf3 82.Kd3 Kg2 83.Kc2 Kg1
84.Kc1 Kf2 85.Kd2 Kf3 86.Kd3 Kf4
87.Kd4 Kf5 88.Kd5, when Black can make
no progress and the game should end in a
draw - 88...f6 89.exf6 Kxf6 90.Kd6. On the
other hand, the immediate aggression is
wrong on the account of 80.Kd5? Kf3–+.
Black wins the diagonal opposition and
outflanks the opponent's king: 81.Kd4 Kf4
82.Kd5 Ke3 83.Kd6 Ke4 84.Kd7 Ke5–+.
Also wrong is 80.Ke4? Kg4 81.Ke3 Kf5
82.Kd4 Kf4, which transposes to the
previous note - 83.Kd5 Ke3 84.Kd6 Ke4
85.Kd7 Ke5–+.
The many lines in which White could have
gone wrong should convince you that
things are not as simple as they look. The
game saw:
80...Kg4 81.Ke4 Kg5

XIIIIIIIIY
9-+-+-+-+0
9+-+p+p+-0
9-+-+-+-+0
9+-+-zP-mk-0
9-+-+K+-+0
9+-+-+-+-0
9-+-+-+-+0
9+-+-+-+-0
xiiiiiiiiy

Now White can not maintain the vital
normal opposition as the e5 square is not
available for his king.
82.Kd4
82.Ke3 Kf5 83.Kd4 Kf4 84.Kd5 Ke3–+.

FIDE Surveys – Dejan Bojkov

2

82...Kf4
Opposition.
83.Kd5 Ke3
Outflanking. White resigned due to the
line: 83...Ke3 84.Kc5 Ke4 85.Kd6 Kd4
86.Kd7 Ke5 87.Ke7 f5–+. 0:1.
(Notes by Karsten Mueller are used in the
annotations.)
Panjwani did his homework which cannot
be said for his opponent. He knew long
before the game the following classical
example:

Neustadtl, 1890

XIIIIIIIIY
9-+-+-+-+0
9+-+-+-+-0
9-+-+-+-+0
9+-+-zp-zp-0
9-+-+-+-+0
9+-+-+P+-0
9-+-+-+K+0
9+-+k+-+-0
xiiiiiiiiy

1.Kh1
Distant opposition saves the day. Once
again bad is the normal one - 1.Kf1? Kd2
2.Kf2 Kd3 3.Kg3 Ke3 4.Kg2 Ke2 5.Kg3
Kf1–+. Outflanking!
1...Kd2
Black has one more resource in his
disposal: 1...g4 but after 2.Kg2 the draw is
inevitable: 2...gf3+ (Or 2...Ke2 3.fg4 e4
4.g5 e3 5.g6 Kd2 6.g7 e2 7.g8Q e1Q=)
3.Kf3 Kd2 4.Ke4.
2.Kh2 Kd3 3.Kh3 Ke3 4.Kg3 Ke2 5.Kg2
Ke1 6.Kg1 ½.

The lack of know-how prevented Langer
of saving the half point after a tough and
accurate resistance. Panjwani on the other
hand knew the position and if the colours
were reversed he would have easily saved
the game. The knowledge helped him in
the game as well as he knew exactly how
to win after his opponent committed a
mistake.

Let us see now how the know-how can
help us save points.

Lalic B. : Gurevich M.
Metz 2012

XIIIIIIIIY
9-+-+-+-+0
9+-+-+k+-0
9-+-+-+-+0
9+-+-+-tRp0
9-tr-+-+-zP0
9+-+-+-zP-0
9-+-+-+-+0
9+-+-+K+-0
xiiiiiiiiy

At a glance it seems as Black is lost. He
cannot defend the h pawn and the two
passers should win easily. However, the
famous player and renown coach replied
with the cool:
44...Rg4!
It seems insane to allow a pawn endgame
when beind down a pawn. On the top of
that the extra pawn is a defended passer.
Still after:
45.Rg4 hg4=
A textbook draw is achieved. Lalic tried to
win for a while:
46.Ke2 Ke6
Distant opposition.
47.Kd3 Kd5
Normal opposition.
48.Kc3
The black king can no longer follow the
opponent but there is a neat solution.
48...Ke5!
Bishop opposition. From here the black
king is ready to take the normal opposition
no matter which direction the white king
will choose. 48...Kc5?? 49.h5.
49.Kb4
49.Kd3 Kd5 only repeats moves. 49.Kc4
Ke4=.
49...Kd4 50.Ka3
Once again the black king is limited to the
square of the h pawn, but Gurevic uses the
familiar method:

FIDE Surveys – Dejan Bojkov

3

50...Ke5!
You can name this dstant bishop
opposition if you like.
51.Ka4 Ke4
Normal distant opposition.
52.Ka5 Ke5 53.Ka6 Ke6 54.Ka7 Ke7
55.Kb7 Kd7 56.Kb6 Kd6 ½.
Gurevich did not have to invent the hot
water. He knew the following position:

Grigoriev, 1922

XIIIIIIIIY
9-+-+-+-+0
9+-+-+-+-0
9-+-+-+-+0
9+-+-mk-+-0
9Pzp-+-+-+0
9+P+-+K+-0
9-+-+-+-+0
9+-+-+-+-0
xiiiiiiiiy

1...Kd5!
Bishop opposition.
2.Kf4 Kd4 3.Kg4 Ke4 4.Kg3 Ke5
Bishop opposition again. Whenever the
normal opposition does not work, the
defender should use the bishop one.
5.Kf3 Kd5 6.a5 Kc5 7.Ke4 Kb5 8.Kd5
Ka5 9.Kc4 Ka6! 10.Kb4 Kb6 ½.

You are not yet convinced? Then check
this out:
Andriasian Z. : Sveshnikov V.
Cappelle la Grande 2012

XIIIIIIIIY
9-+-+-+-+0
9+-+-+-zp-0
9-+-+k+-+0
9+-+-+-+-0
9Pzp-+-mK-+0
9+P+-+-+-0
9-+-+-+-+0
9+-+-+-+-0
xiiiiiiiiy

51...g5!

Sveshnikov demonstrates knowledge. He
could have kept the pawn on g7 and only
after White captures it he can play Ke7
which would also be a draw.
52.Kg5 Ke5 53.Kg4 Ke4 54.Kg3 Ke5
55.Kf3 Kd5 56.Kf2 Ke6 57.Ke2 Kd6
58.Kf3 Kd5 59.Kg3 Ke5 60.Kh4 Kd4
61.Kh3 Kd5 62.Kg2 Kd6 63.Kf2 Ke6
64.Kg2 Kd6 65.Kh3 Kd5 66.Kh4 Kd4
67.Kh5 Kd5 68.Kh6 Kd6 69.Kh7 Kd7
70.Kg6 Ke6 71.Kg5 Ke5 72.Kg4 Ke4
73.Kg3 Ke5 74.Kf3 Kd5 ½.
Try finding this over the board after a tense
four-five hour game. To make things even
spicier, imagine that this is a day with a
double round, this is your second game and
you have played the same four-five
hours…
Let us see now how know-how will help us
win points:

Uhlmann W. : Tania S.
Podebrady 2012

XIIIIIIIIY
9-+-+-+-+0
9+-+-+-+-0
9p+-+k+-zp0
9zP-zp-+p+P0
9-+-zp-mK-+0
9+-+P+-+-0
9-+-+PzP-+0
9+-+-+-+-0
xiiiiiiiiy

The legendary German player Wolfgang
Uhlmann won the East German
championships eleven times and was a
world championship contender in his best
years. At the time that this game is played
though he is 77 (!) years old. This is the
main reason why in a very complex
position he blundered with:
47.e3??
This allowed a break-through:
47...c4! 48.dc4 d3 49.Kf3 Ke5
And White resigned due to the zugzwang:
49...Ke5 50.e4 f4 51.c5 Ke6–+. 0:1.
As it was pointed out in Chess Today,
Uhlmann missed a win.

FIDE Surveys – Dejan Bojkov

4

XIIIIIIIIY
9-+-+-+-+0
9+-+-+-+-0
9p+-+k+-zp0
9zP-zp-+p+P0
9-+-zp-mK-+0
9+-+P+-+-0
9-+-+PzP-+0
9+-+-+-+-0
xiiiiiiiiy

Things should have ended differently after:
47.e4! de3
47...c4 48.dc4.
48.fe3 Kf6 49.e4!
White wants to trade the central pawns to
reach a theoretically won endgame.
49...fe4 50.de4 c4 51.e5 Ke6 52.Ke4 c3
53.Kd3 Ke5
Nothing changes: 53...Kf5 54.Kc3 Ke5
55.Kc4 Kd6 56.Kd4+–.
54.Kc3!

XIIIIIIIIY
9-+-+-+-+0
9+-+-+-+-0
9p+-+-+-zp0
9zP-+-mk-+P0
9-+-+-+-+0
9+-mK-+-+-0
9-+-+-+-+0
9+-+-+-+-0
xiiiiiiiiy

Yet another case of a bishop opposition!
The space advantage and the geometry of
the board work in White's favour and he
wins no matter which pawn Black will go
for.
54...Kd5
54...Kf5 55.Kc4 Kg5 56.Kc5 Kh5 57.Kb6
Kg4 58.Ka6 h5 59.Kb6 h4 60.a6 h3 61.a7
h2 62.a8Q+–.
55.Kd3 Kc5 56.Ke4 Kb5 57.Kf5 Ka5
58.Kg6 Kb4 59.Kh6 a5 60.Kg6 a4 61.h6
a3 62.h7 a2 63.h8Q+– .
How could Uhlmann calculate that deep

He did not have to. All he needed to do
was to remember the following study:

Grigoriev, 1927

XIIIIIIIIY
9-+-+-+-+0
9+-+-+-+-0
9p+-+-+-zp0
9zP-+-mk-+P0
9-+-+-+-+0
9+-+-+-+-0
9-+K+-+-+0
9+-+-+-+-0
xiiiiiiiiy

1.Kc3!
1.Kd3? Kd5=.
1...Kd5
1...Kf5 2.Kc4 Kg5 3.Kc5 Kxh5 4.Kb6 Kg4
5.Ka6 h5 6.Kb6 h4 7.a6 h3 8.a7 h2
9.a8Q+–; 1...Ke6 2.Kc4.
2.Kd3 Kc5 3.Ke4 Kb5 4.Kf5 Ka5 5.Kg6
Kb4 6.Kh6 a5 7.Kg6 a4 8.h6 a3 9.h7 a2
10.h8Q 1:0.

The solution of the problem would be the
proper equipment with a base of
knowledge. You do not need to know
every single endgame by heart. It is hardly
possible (except perhaps for a genius like
Ivanchuk), but more importantly it is not
worth memorizing countless endgames,
which are very unlikely to happen.
On the other hand each player should owe
an existence minimum of exact positions in
every major endgame (pawns above all but
also knight/bishop/rook/queen) endgames.
This will help the players a chance to
orientate in most of the situations, will
suggest them which pieces to trade and
which to keep and naturally will support
the calculation.
Best of luck in building your own memory
library!