The Latvian Gambit (or Greco Countergambit ) is a chess opening characterised by the moves:
74-462: It is one of the oldest chess openings, having been analysed in the 16th century by Giulio Cesare Polerio and then the 17th century by Gioachino Greco , after whom it is sometimes named. The opening has the appearance of a King's Gambit with colours reversed . It is an aggressive but objectively dubious opening for Black which often leads to wild and tricky positions. FIDE Master Dennis Monokroussos even goes so far as to describe it as "possibly
148-462: A "lust to expand". An outside passed pawn is particularly deadly. The point of this is a deflection – while the defending king is preventing the outside passed pawn from queening, the attacking king wins pawns on the other side. Opposition is an important technique that is used to gain an advantage. When two kings are in opposition, they are on the same file (or rank ) with one empty square separating them. The player having
222-506: A better pawn structure, and better bishops. Few openings give you such a good position after just 10 moves. This passive move does not promise White any advantage. After 3...Nc6 4.Nc3 Nf6 5.exf5 d5, Black is okay. Alternatively, 3...d6 4.Nc3 Nf6 5.g3 Be7 6.Bg2 is also considered a prudent defense by Black. Black's best response is 3...Nc6. Sample continuation #1 4.Nc3 Nc6 5.exf5 d5 Sample continuation #2 4.Nc3 Nc6 5.Bg5 Bb4 6.exf5 d5 7.a3 Bxc3+ 8.bxc3 Bxf5 Assessment : Normal position that
296-647: A chess player and writer in ordinary of Giacomo Boncompagni , Duke of Sora and son of Pope Gregory XIII (born Ugo Boncompagni) . Polerio wrote a number of codexes in which a lively international chess dialogue is described involving the exchange of ideas among players in Italy, Portugal, and Spain. In these codexes, besides new ideas regarding chess openings , Polerio describes some of his own matches. In Il Puttino , Salvio mentions that, starting in 1606 from " Città di Piazza ", " Geronimo Cascio , on his way to Rome, beat Giulio Cesare (Polerio), companion of Il Puttino,
370-578: A comment on the fact that a small advantage in a rook and pawn endgame is less likely to be converted into a win. Mark Dvoretsky said that the statement is "semi-joking, semi-serious". This quotation has variously been attributed to Savielly Tartakower and to Siegbert Tarrasch . Writers Victor Korchnoi , John Emms , and James Howell , attribute the quote to Tartakower, whereas Dvoretsky, Andrew Soltis , Karsten Müller , and Kaufeld & Kern attribute it to Tarrasch. John Watson attributed to Tarrasch "by legend" and says that statistics do not support
444-532: A common type of endgame in practice, occurring in about 10 percent of all games (including ones that do not reach an endgame). These endgames occur frequently because rooks are often the last pieces to be exchanged. The ability to play these endgames well is a major factor distinguishing masters from amateurs. When both sides have two rooks and pawns, the stronger side usually has more winning chances than if each had only one rook. Three rules of thumb regarding rooks are worth noting: An important winning position in
518-586: A decisive incursion by White's bishop) 4... Bd7 5. Bxg6! Two rules given by Luigi Centurini in the 19th century apply: The position in the second diagram shows a winning position for White, although it requires accurate play. A knight pawn always wins if the defending bishop only has one long diagonal available. This position was reached in a game from the 1965 Candidates Tournament between Lajos Portisch and former World Champion Mikhail Tal . White must defend accurately and utilize reciprocal zugzwang . Often he has only one or two moves that avoid
592-453: A definite conclusion, given enough skill and time. An error in a king and pawn endgame almost always turns a win into a draw or a draw into a loss – there is little chance for recovery. Accuracy is most important in these endgames. There are three fundamental ideas in these endgames: opposition , triangulation , and the Réti manoeuvre . This is one of the most basic endgames. A draw results if
666-429: A draw, the defender (the side with fewer pawns) should try to avoid situations in which the queen and rooks are forcibly traded into a losing king and pawn endgame . If there are no pawns, the position is usually drawn, but either side wins in some positions. A queen is equivalent to a rook and bishop plus one pawn. If the queen has an additional pawn it wins, but with difficulty. A rook and bishop plus two pawns win over
740-412: A few pawns. ( Haworth, Guy M C (2009). "Western Chess:Endgame Data" . CentAUR . ) The procedure can be long and difficult. In competition, the fifty-move rule will often result in the game being drawn first. The endgame of king and three knights against king will not normally occur in a game, but it is of theoretical interest. The three knights win. Two of the most common pawnless endgames (when
814-424: A losing position. Black was unable to make any progress and the game was drawn on move 83. Endings with bishops of opposite color , meaning that one bishop works on the light squares, the other one working on dark squares, are notorious for their drawish character. Many players in a poor position have saved themselves from a loss by trading down to such an endgame. They are often drawn even when one side has
SECTION 10
#1732793575843888-512: A material advantage tries to exchange pieces but avoids exchanging pawns in the endgame. Some exceptions to this are: Usually, endings with pawns on both sides of the board are easier to win and the first player to promote a pawn to a queen wins if the opponent is unable to do so on the turn immediately after. Max Euwe and Walter Meiden give these five generalizations: Many endings without pawns have been solved , that is, best play for both sides from any starting position can be determined, and
962-416: A material configuration. Some problem composers believe that the endgame starts when the player to move can force a win or a draw against any variation of moves. Alburt and Krogius give three characteristics of an endgame: Mednis and Crouch address the question of what constitutes an endgame negatively. They believe that the game is not in the endgame if these apply: Generally, the player having
1036-463: A pawn, see Queen versus pawn endgame . The queen and pawn versus queen endgame is the second most common of the "piece and pawn versus piece" endgames, after rook and pawn versus rook . It is very complicated and difficult to play. Human analysts were not able to make a complete analysis before the advent of endgame tablebases . This combination is a win less frequently than the equivalent ending with rooks. The difference in material between
1110-414: A piece sacrifice with either 6.Nc3!? or 6.Nd2!?, but Black seems to have adequate resources against both. Black's best response is considered to be 3...fxe4. Sample Continuation #1 4.Nxe5 Nf6 5.Be2 d6 6.Nc4 Be6 7.Ne3 d5 8.c4 c6 9.Nc3 Be7 10.0-0 0-0 Common mistake 8. O-O? c5! Sample Continuation #2 4.Nxe5 Nf6 5.Be2 d6 6.Ng4 Be7 7.Nc3 d5 8.Ne5 O-O 9.Bg5 c6 10.O-O Bf5 Assessment : Black has
1184-427: A rook and a minor piece is about two points or a little less, the equivalent of two pawns. If both sides have pawns, the result essentially depends on how many pawns the minor piece has for the exchange : In an endgame, two minor pieces are approximately equivalent to a rook plus one pawn. The pawn structure is important. The two pieces have the advantage if the opponent's pawns are weak. Initiative
1258-400: A two-pawn advantage, since the weaker side can create a blockade on the squares on which his bishop operates. The weaker side should often try to make their bishop bad by placing their pawns on the same color of their bishop in order to defend their remaining pawns, thereby creating an impregnable fortress . Current theory is that bishops are better than knights about 60 percent of
1332-520: Is 3...fxe4. Some sample continuations are Assessment : Black is usually down material, but has excellent compensation. Most of White's pieces are still on the back rank. IM Mio argues Black is better. Several other responses for White have been analysed. White's 3.Nc3 was originally analysed by the American master Stasch Mlotkowski (1881–1943) in the 1916 British Chess Magazine . Kosten gives as Black's two main responses 3...Nf6 4.Bc4 (4.exf5
1406-411: Is 9...Bc5 10.Na4 Bd6 11.c4 d4 12.Nc2 c5 13.b4 Ne7 14.Nxc5 Bxc5 15.bxc5 Nbc6 16.Bb2 0–0 17.Nxd4 Nxd4 18.Bxd4 Bf5 19.Bxf5 Nxf5 20.Be3 Qxc4 21.Qb3 Nxe3!? 22.fxe3 Rxf1+ 23.Rxf1 Qxb3 24.axb3 Rc8 25.Rf5 and now 25...Rd8 or 25...Rc6 gives Black an excellent chance to draw the pawn-down endgame . Silman later argued that 10.b4!! and now 10...Bxb4 11.Ncxd5 cxd5 12.Nxd5 or 10...Bd6 11.Re1! Ne7 12.Nexd5 cxd5 13.Nb5
1480-563: Is a major alternative) 10.Nf7+ Ke8 11.Nxh8+ hxg6 12.Qxg6+ Kd8 13.Nf7+ Ke7 14.Nc3! ( diagram ). Instead of 4...Qg5, however, "nowadays players often give preference to 4...d5", the Svedenborg or Polerio Variation. According to Latvian Gambit experts Kon Grivainis and John Elburg, Black wins more often than White in this line. After 4...d5 5.Qh5+ g6 6.Nxg6, Black chooses between 6...Nf6 and 6...hxg6. 6...Nf6 usually leads, after 7.Qe5+ Be7 8.Bb5+! (a small zwischenzug to deprive Black's knight of
1554-492: Is a trivial draw, in that checkmate is not even possible. Likewise for king and knight versus king. Two knights cannot force checkmate against a lone king (see Two knights endgame ). While there is a board position that allows two knights to checkmate a lone king, such requires a careless move by the weaker side to execute. If the weaker side also has material (besides the king), checkmate is sometimes possible. The winning chances with two knights are insignificant except against
SECTION 20
#17327935758431628-531: Is also possible) fxe4 5.Nxe5 d5 6.Nxd5! Nxd5 7.Qh5+ g6 8.Nxg6! hxg6! 9.Qxg6+ Kd7 10.Bxd5 Qe7 11.Qxe4 Rh4 12.Qxe7+ Bxe7, reaching an endgame where White has four pawns for a minor piece , and 4...fxe4 5.Nxe5 Qf6, when White can choose from 6.Nc4! (transposing to the main line 3.Nxe5 Qf6 4.Nc4 fxe4 6.Nc3), 6.d4, and 6.f4!? Black can also play 3...d6, when 4.d4 transposes to the Philidor Countergambit (1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 d6 3.d4 f5!?), which
1702-645: Is based on the observation that " im Handbuch (1864, S.. 366, § 3)" this move order is called "das Gambit des Calabresen". This is a rather interesting observation since in the "Handbuch" in its 2nd edition as of 1852, on p. 205 it is mentioned that the move order 1.e4 e5 2.Bc4 f5 can be found "at the Calabrese". That's a rather wise wording since both 1.e4 e5 2.Bc4 f5 and 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 f5, according to Codexes of Polerio, occurred in games of "Gio. Leonardo" (games 236–238, p. 190 in van der Linde). Both Giovanni Leonardo and Gioacchino Greco were from Calabria ,
1776-430: Is close to winning for White, and that the "old, discredited" 9...Bd6 (rather than 9...Bc5) might be Black's best try, though still insufficient for equality . A possible continuation after 4.d4 is 4...d6 5.Nc4 fxe4 6.Nc3 Qg6 7.f3 exf3 8.Qxf3 Nf6 9.Bd3 Qg4 10.Qe3+ Qe6 11.0-0 Qxe3+ 12.Bxe3 Be7 13.Rae1 0-0. White is better here, but Black has chances due to White's misplaced king and weak light squares. Also possible
1850-500: Is comparable to several other openings. White has a weak pawn structure but the bishop pair. However, this is a tough advantage to prove, since White's light-squared bishop is restricted. Giulio Cesare Polerio Giulio Cesare Polerio (c. 1555, – c. 1610; reconstruction of places and dates by Adriano Chicco ) was an Italian chess theoretician and player. Name affixes used for him are l'Apruzzese , Giu[o]lio Cesare da Lanciano (Salvio/Walker ), and Lancianese , because he
1924-400: Is in front of the pawn or sufficiently close. The defending king can occupy a square in front of the pawn of the opposite color as the bishop and cannot be driven away. Otherwise the attacker can win. This is a draw if the defending king is in front of the pawn or sufficiently near. The bishop is kept on a diagonal that the pawn must cross, and the knight cannot both block the bishop and drive
1998-426: Is known as endgame theory. Compared to opening theory, which changes frequently, giving way to middlegame positions that fall in and out of popularity, endgame theory is less subject to change. Many endgame studies have been composed; they consist of endgame positions which are solved by finding a win for White when there is no obvious way to win, or finding a draw when White appears to lose. In some compositions,
2072-485: Is more important in this endgame than any other. The general outcome can be broken down by the number of pawns. Without pawns this is normally drawn, but either side wins in some positions. A queen and pawn are normally equivalent to two rooks, which is usually a draw if both sides have an equal number of additional pawns. Two rooks plus one pawn versus a queen is also generally drawn. Otherwise, if either side has an additional pawn, that side normally wins. While playing for
2146-550: Is one of the few grandmasters to play it in serious competition; he has argued that it is not as bad as its reputation and that even with best play White's advantage is not large. White's 3.Nxe5 is considered the main line against the Latvian. After the usual 3...Qf6, the traditional main line has been 4.d4 d6 5.Nc4 fxe4, however recently the immediate 4.Nc4 (the Leonhardt Variation) has become popular. 4.Nc4 has
2220-478: Is solid, ready to expand queenside, which is considered to be equal. Sample Continuation #2 4.Nd4 Nf6 5.d3 c5 6.Nb3 exd3 7.Bxd3 d5 8.Bb5+ Nc6 Common mistake 4. Qe2? Qe7 5.Nd4 Nc6 6.Qh5+ Kd8 7.Nxc6+ dxc6 8.Be2 Nf6 9.Qg5 h6 10.Qe3 Bxf5 11.0-0 Nd5 12.Qd4 Qd6 13.d3 Nb4 Assessment : Black is not lost here, and often allows Nf7 and sacrifice Black's kingside rook. White's 3.d4 followed by 3...fxe4 4.Nxe5 Nf6 5.Bg5 d6 leads, as usual, to sharp play. White often offers
2294-422: Is strong) 8.d3! (Stefan Bücker gives an alternative 8.Nc3! Nb4 9.d3 as also winning for White) 8...fxe4 9.Be3 d5 10.Bc5! Qxc5 11.Qxf6 Bf5 12.dxe4 Nd4 13.exf5! Nxc2+ 14.Kd1 Nxa1 15.Bd3 Qd6 16.Re1+ Kd7 17.Qf7+ Be7 18.Re6 winning. White's 3.Bc4 may lead to perhaps the most notorious and heavily analysed line of the Latvian, which begins 3...fxe4 4.Nxe5 Qg5 5.d4 Qxg2 6.Qh5+ g6 7.Bf7+ Kd8 8.Bxg6! Qxh1+ 9.Ke2 Qxc1 (9...c6
Latvian Gambit - Misplaced Pages Continue
2368-484: Is that if the weaker side's king can get to the queening square of the pawn, the game is a draw and otherwise it is a win, but there are many exceptions. Generally (but not always), if the defending king can reach the queening square of the pawn the game is a draw (see Philidor position ), otherwise the attacker usually wins (if it is not a rook pawn) (see Lucena position ). The winning procedure can be very difficult and some positions require up to sixty moves to win. If
2442-469: Is the eccentric 3...Nc6?!, against which John Nunn recommends 4.d4, preferring principled opening play to the unclear tactics resulting from 4.Qh5+. After 4.d4, if 4...Qh4? (Kosten's original recommendation) 5.Nf3! Qxe4+ 6.Be2 leaves Black with a lost position. After 4.d4, Kosten analyses 4...Qf6!? 5.Nc3 Bb4 6.exf5! Nxe5 7.Qe2. Instead of 4.d4, Kosten says that White can accept the proffered rook with 4.Qh5+ g6 5.Nxg6 Nf6 6.Qh3 hxg6 7.Qxh8 Qe7 (7...fxe4? 8.d4!
2516-404: Is to golf." Any endgame with pieces and pawns has the possibility of simplifying into a pawn ending. In king and pawn endings, an extra pawn is decisive in more than 90 percent of the cases. Getting a passed pawn is crucial (a passed pawn is one which does not have an opposing pawn on its file or on adjacent files on its way to promotion). Nimzowitch once said that a passed pawn has
2590-511: The rook and pawn versus rook endgame is the so-called Lucena position . If the side with the pawn can reach the Lucena position, he wins. There are several important drawing techniques, however, such as the Philidor position , the back-rank defense (rook on the first rank, for rook pawns and knight pawns only), the frontal defense , and the short-side defense . A general rule
2664-528: The Codexes of Polerio has been performed and published by Alessandro Sanvito in 2005. The systematic organisation of overall seven Codexes , described and called A-G by Van der Linde, and attributed to Polerio in 1874, had major impact on the further description of chess history, and history of chess theory. A relevant part of the work of Van der Linde was to compare Codexes of Polerio and Gioacchino Greco even superfine. According to this investigation, most of
2738-692: The Latvian Gambit is C40 ( King's Knight Opening ). The opening was originally known as the Greco Countergambit , and some modern writers still refer to it as such. That name recognised the Italian player Gioachino Greco (1600–1634), who contributed to the early theory of the opening. In 19th century German chess literature, the opening was often referred to as "Gambit in der Rückhand" ("backhand gambit"), i.e. gambit played by Black. (The terms "Vorhand" and "Rückhand" were used before
2812-400: The advantage of allowing White to open the centre with d3, for example 4...fxe4 5.Nc3 Qg6?! 6.d3 exd3? 7.Bxd3 Qxg2? and now White is winning after 8.Qh5+ Kd8 (or 8...g6 9.Qe5+ and 10.Be4) 9.Be4. If 6... Bb4, however, White must be careful following the same line, e.g. 7.Bd2 exd3 8.Bxd3 Qxg2 9.Qh5+ Kd8 10.Be4 Nf6! because now if White plays Bg5, which would be necessary to win the queen in
2886-515: The analytic work of Polerio was mediated outside of Italy, up to 1874, via Gioacchino Greco. More recent work by Peter J. Monté compiling game scores from all sixteenth and seventeenth century manuscripts reveals where Greco copied Polerio and where he carried the games further. The Polerio defense is one of the traditional responses to the Fried Liver Attack by black, attempting to force the bishop to an inactive square or trading until
2960-407: The attacking rook is two files from the pawn and the defending king is cut off on the other side, the attacker normally wins (with a few exceptions). The rook and pawn versus rook is the most common of the "piece and pawn versus piece" endgames. The most difficult case of a rook and pawn versus a rook occurs when the attacking rook is one file over from the pawn and the defending king is cut off on
3034-455: The b7 square. Black to move draws starting with 1... Nc4 because White cannot gain a tempo . Bishop and pawn endgames come in two distinctly different variants. If the opposing bishops go on the same color of square, the mobility of the bishops is a crucial factor. A bad bishop is one that is hemmed in by pawns of its own color, and has the burden of defending them. The adjacent diagram, from Molnar–Nagy, Hungary 1966, illustrates
Latvian Gambit - Misplaced Pages Continue
3108-676: The best in Rome, in the house/court of his Excellence Giacomo Boncompagni, Duke of Sora." The first systematic investigation of the Codexes of Polerio was published by Antonius van der Linde in 1874. The subject of the investigations by Van der Linde can be found at the Bibliotheca Van der Linde-Niemeijeriana , part of the Koninklijke Bibliotheek, National Library of the Netherlands . The current systematics of
3182-880: The bishop is captured, thus weakening White's attack. The moves to achieve this defense are as follows: *Classic Fried-Liver attack On p. 186 of "Das Schachspiel des XVI. Jahrhunderts" van der Linde wrote in 1874: " D. Polerio-Gambit 224 1. e2-e4 e7-e5 2. f2-f4 e5-f4: 3. Sg1-f3 g7-g5 4. Lf1-c4 g5-g4 5. 0-0! g4-f3: 6. Dd1-f3: e cosi ancor che habbia perso un pezzo resta con buonissima postura di poter uencere il gioco sapendo guidarlo à presso, il che sarebbe superfluo inogni modo se si uolesse mostrare la fine di tutti giochi, e per questo basta insino à un certo che, tanto che si conosca apartemente il uantagio del gioco, si come per la postura di dette giochi ogni giudicioso giocatore lo potrà facilmente cognoscere ." ) ... in modern terms: "Polerio Gambit: 1. e4 e5 2.f4 exf4 3. Nf3 g5 4.Bc4 g4 5.0-0! gxf3 6.Qxf3 +/−" Exactly this move order
3256-459: The c6-square) 8...c6 9.Nxe7 Qxe7 10.Qxe7+ Kxe7 11.Be2 (or 11.Bf1), to an endgame where Black is a pawn down but has positional compensation . Sharper is 6...hxg6, when 7.Qxh8 Kf7 9.Qd4 Be6 gives White a large material advantage, but his "position is constantly on the edge of a precipice", and the line has accordingly fallen out of favour. More often, White plays 7.Qxg6+ Kd7 8.Bxd5 Nf6, leading to sharp and unclear play. Black's best response
3330-468: The concepts of good bishop versus bad bishop, opposition, zugzwang , and outside passed pawn. White wins with 1. e6! (vacating e5 for his king) 1... Bxe6 2. Bc2! (threatening Bxg6) 2... Bf7 3. Be4! (threatening Bxc6) 3... Be8 4. Ke5! (seizing the opposition [i.e. the kings are two orthogonal squares apart, with the other player on move] and placing Black in zugzwang—he must either move his king, allowing White's king to penetrate, or his bishop, allowing
3404-436: The defending king away. Otherwise, the attacker can win. Rook and pawn endgames are often drawn in spite of one side having an extra pawn. (In some cases, two extra pawns are not enough to win.) An extra pawn is harder to convert to a win in a rook and pawn endgame than any other type of endgame except a bishop endgame with bishops on opposite colors. Rook endings are probably the deepest and most well studied endgames. They are
3478-421: The defending king can reach the square in front of the pawn or the square in front of that (or capture the pawn). If the attacking king can prevent that, the king will assist the pawn in being promoted to a queen or rook, and checkmate can be achieved. A rook pawn is an exception because the king may not be able to get out of the way of its pawn. Knight and pawn endgames feature clever manoeuvring by
3552-518: The defense has a piece in addition to the king) are (1) a queen versus a rook and (2) a rook and bishop versus a rook. A queen wins against a rook — see Queen versus rook endgame . A rook and bishop versus a rook is generally a theoretical draw, but the defense is difficult and there are winning positions (see Rook and bishop versus rook endgame ). King and pawn endgames involve only kings and pawns on one or both sides. International Master Cecil Purdy said, "Pawn endings are to chess as putting
3626-486: The earlier line, then ...Bxc3+ wins for Black. The main line continues 5...Qf7 6.Ne3! Black usually responds with 6...c6!?, when White can either accept the pawn sacrifice with 7.Nxe4 d5 8.Ng5 Qf6 9.Nf3, or decline it with the more popular 7.d3 exd3 8.Bxd3 d5 9.0-0. The latter variation has been deeply analysed; the British grandmaster Anthony Kosten analyses one line to move 32. One line discussed by IM Jeremy Silman
3700-426: The first from Cutro , the second from Celico . Chess endgame The endgame (or ending ) is the final stage of a chess game which occurs after the middlegame . It begins when few pieces are left on the board. The line between the middlegame and the endgame is often not clear, and may occur gradually or with a quick exchange of pieces. The endgame, however, tends to have different characteristics from
3774-399: The flank at the greatest possible distance from the attacking king. Nothing less than a distance of three files makes it possible for the rook to keep on giving check. Otherwise it would ultimately be attacked by the king. The defending king must stand on the smaller part of the board. (See the short side defense at Rook and pawn versus rook endgame .) The context of this quote shows it is
SECTION 50
#17327935758433848-510: The following Gambit was sent to him by Signor Muzio, ..." Actually, Alessandro Salvio never stated this. Rather, in the third book of the Il Puttino he wrote that Signor Mutio d'Alessandro did see that Geronimo Cascio did play the move order (with free castling, also called "Italian method" of castling ). With p. 165 , vol. 2, of the 1821 edition of A New Treatise of the Game of Chess
3922-509: The gambit: Ilyin-Zhenevsky vs K Bētiņš, 1921. According to most, the opening's only advantage is its ostensible novelty value, since, irrespective of what level you play at, the chances of your opponent even knowing this opening, let alone knowing the best lines for White, are low. However, it has been used by Boris Spassky and Mikhail Chigorin , amongst many others; albeit, usually in casual play. Most notably, even Bobby Fischer and José Raúl Capablanca have lost to it. Sweden's Jonny Hector
3996-407: The king and knight must be covering squares in the pawn's path. If the pawn reaches the seventh rank and is supported by its king and knight, it usually promotes and wins. In this position, White to move wins: 1. b6 Nb7! 2. Ne6! Na5 3. Kc8! N-any 4. Nc7# . If Black plays the knight to any other square on move 2, White plays Kc8 anyway, threatening b7+ and promotion if the knight leaves the defense of
4070-411: The knights to capture opponent pawns. While a knight is poor at chasing a passed pawn, it is the ideal piece to block a passed pawn. Knights cannot lose a tempo , so knight and pawn endgames have much in common with king and pawn endgames. As a result, Mikhail Botvinnik stated, “A knight ending is really a pawn ending.” This is generally a draw since the knight can be sacrificed for the pawn, however,
4144-584: The last editions of the Handbuch . Thereafter, a trend can be seen to call this move order either with hyphenated terms such as Muzio–Polerio, Polerio–Muzio, or simply Polerio Gambit. Such a terminology is both in honour of Giulio Cesare Polerio and partially misleading since the major body of the theory of this opening was generated in the time span in-between 1821 and 1874. The number of games played by Adolf Anderssen , Paul Morphy , and Wilhelm Steinitz with 1.e4 e5 2.f4 exf4 3.Nf3 g5 4.Bc4 g4 5.0-0 or 5.d4 in
4218-731: The middle game ends and the endgame starts." Using the standard system for chess piece relative value , Speelman considers that endgames are positions in which each player has thirteen or fewer points in material (not counting the king). Alternatively, they are positions in which the king can be used actively, but there are some famous exceptions to that. Minev characterizes endgames as positions having four or fewer pieces other than kings and pawns. Fine considers endgames to be positions without queens . Flear considers endgames to be positions where both players have at most one piece (other than kings and pawns) whereas Dvoretsky considers them to be positions in which at least one player has such
4292-419: The middlegame, and the players have correspondingly different strategic concerns. In particular, pawns become more important as endgames often revolve around attempts to promote a pawn by advancing it to the eighth rank . The king , which normally is kept safe during the game, becomes active in the endgame, as it can help escort pawns to promotion, attack enemy pawns, protect other pieces, and restrict
4366-456: The move loses the opposition. That player must move the king and allow the opponent's king to advance. However, the opposition is a means to an end, which is penetration into the enemy position. The attacker should try to penetrate with or without the opposition. The tactics of triangulation and zugzwang as well as the theory of corresponding squares are often decisive. Unlike most positions, king and pawn endgames can usually be analyzed to
4440-487: The movement of the enemy king. Not all chess games reach an endgame; some of them end earlier. All chess positions with up to seven pieces on the board have been solved by endgame tablebases , so the outcome (win, loss, or draw) of best play by both sides in such positions is known, and endgame textbooks teach this best play. However, most endgames are not solved, so textbooks teach useful strategies and tactics about them. The body of chess theory devoted to endgames
4514-411: The other side. Siegbert Tarrasch gave the following rules for this case: For a player defending against a pawn on the fifth or even sixth ranks to obtain a draw, even after his king has been forced off the queening square, the following conditions must obtain: The file on which the pawn stands divides the board into two unequal parts. The defending rook must stand in the longer part and give checks from
SECTION 60
#17327935758434588-492: The outcome (win, loss, or draw) is known. For example, the following are all wins for the side with pieces: See Wikibooks – Chess/The Endgame for a demonstration of the first two checkmates, which are generally taught in textbooks as basic knowledge. The last two are sometimes taught as basic knowledge as well, although the procedure for mate with bishop and knight is relatively difficult and many tournament players do not know it. The ending of king and bishop versus king
4662-455: The queen can escort it to the queening square alone. The advancement of the passed pawn outweighs the number of pawns. The defender must resort to perpetual check . These endings are frequently extremely long affairs. For an example of a queen and pawn endgame see Kasparov versus the World – Kasparov won although he had fewer pawns because his was more advanced. For the ending with a queen versus
4736-420: The standard that White moves first was adopted in the mid-19th century). The name Latvian Gambit is a tribute to several Latvian players who analysed it, Kārlis Bētiņš being the most prominent among them. The Austrian master Albert Becker once published an article that Bētiņš judged to be dismissive about the Latvian Gambit. In response, Bētiņš published and analysed one of his own games in order to defend
4810-436: The starting position would be unlikely to occur in an actual game; but if the starting position is not artificial, the composition may be incorporated into endgame theory. Endgames are usually classified based on the type of pieces that remain. There is no strict criterion for when an endgame begins, and different authors have different opinions. The former World Chess Champion Alexander Alekhine said, "We cannot define when
4884-501: The statement. Benko wonders if it was due to Vasily Smyslov . Attributing the quote to Tarrasch may be a result of confusion between this quote and the Tarrasch rule concerning rooks. The source of the quote is currently unresolved. Benko noted that although the saying is usually said with tongue in cheek, it is truer in practice than one might think. In queen and pawn endings , passed pawns have paramount importance, because
4958-413: The term Muzio Gambit was coined by Jacob Henry Sarratt . And with the latter work of Sarrat, in 1821 the modern theory of the "Muzio Gambit" with castling according modern rules started – an idea and a position already Polerio analysed in 1579/80. Thus, Antonius van der Linde, changed the view on the historical development of the move order 1.e4 e5 2.f4 exf4 3.Nf3 g5 4.Bc4 g4 5.0-0 in 1874, most notably in
5032-416: The time in the endgame. The more symmetrical the pawn structure , the better it is for the knight. The knight is best suited at an outpost in the center, particularly where it cannot easily be driven away, whereas the bishop is strongest when it can attack targets on both sides of the board or a series of squares of the same color. Fine and Benko give four conclusions: This is a draw if the defending king
5106-447: The time span 1821–1874 was already rather high. The rules for Chess opening nomenclature , and their historical development, should be taken into account while assessing van der Linde's claim of 1874 "D. Polerio-Gambit". In 1874, Van der Linde suggested as well (p. 188) to rename the move order 1.e4 e5 2.f4 exf4 3.Nf3 g5 4.Bc4 Bg7 5.h4 h6 6.d4 d6 7.Nc3 c6 8.hxg5 hxg5 9.Rxh8 Bxh8 10.Ne5!? into "Polerio's second Gambit". This suggestion
5180-460: The white king of Polerio did stand, after 5.0-0, on h1 but not on g1 (i.e. castling as defined in our days). However, in 1874, the move order 1.e4 e5 2.f4 exf4 3.Nf3 g5 4.Bc4 g4 5.0-0! was already occupied by the term " Muzio Gambit ". This term derives from a translation of a work of Alessandro Salvio , supposedly the third book of the reprint of 1723, by Sarrat in 1813. On page 209 Jacob Henry Sarratt (translated) and wrote: "SALVIO states that
5254-408: The worst opening in chess". While Paul van der Sterren observes: What is required to play the Latvian Gambit with any degree of success is a sharp eye for tactics and a mental attitude of total contempt for whatever theory has to say about it. The Latvian is, and has always been, uncommon in top-level over-the-board play, but some correspondence players are devotees. The ECO code for
5328-501: Was also found later even in a second Polerio Codex discovered and described by J.A. Leon in 1894. Of note is that the position after 1.e4 e5 2.f4 exf4 3.Nf3 g5 4.Bc4 g4 5.0-0 gxf3 6.Qxf3 may be considered by most recent grandmasters as a forced win for White – provided that 5.0-0 would mean "free castling ", i.e. bringing the White King from e1 to h1. Actually, Polerio did claim 5.0-0 gxf3 6.Qxf3 to be favourable for White although
5402-698: Was born in Lanciano , a town in the province of Chieti of the region Abruzzo of Italy. He died in Rome . The first published mention of Polerio is from 1634 in Il Puttino by Alessandro Salvio . It recounts an event that must have occurred around 1575. "Il Puttino, altramente detto il Cavaliere errante" is a nickname used by Alessandro Salvio for Giovanni Leonardo . According to Salvio, Polerio accompanied Giovanni Leonardo on his way to Madrid until Genoa . After returning to Rome around 1584, Polerio became
5476-676: Was favoured by Paul Morphy in the mid-19th century and is still seen occasionally today. Today, however, Black's response is considered to be 3...fxe4. Assessment : One of the best lines for Black. Black has better bishops and a strong centre. White's 3.exf5 followed by 3...e4 4.Ne5 Nf6 5.Be2 is recommended by John L. Watson and Eric Schiller . 4.Qe2, 4.Nd4, and even 4.Ng1!? are also possible. Black's response should be 3...e4. Now, White has three possible moves: Sample Continuation #1 (Ian Defense) 4.Ne5 Nf6 5.Be2 Be7 6.Bh5+ Kf8! 7.Nf7 Qe8 8.Nxh8 Nxh5 9.Nc3 Kg8 Black lost castle and exchanged its Rook with White Knight and Bishop, but kingside
#842157