King And Pawn - Corresponding Squares

I'm posting this for people who have looked at this before primarily in the hope that by talking about it I may better understand it.

From Muller and Lamprecht's excellent "Secrets of Pawn Endings", state that corresponding squares are where kings are in reciprocal zugzwang but they note that corresponding squares theory (CST - my designation) isn't everything when reserve pawn moves and king attacking with tempo are to be considered etc

They mark the diagrams in the book with numbers that relate to CST and remark it's a pity that we can't mark the chess board with numbers. I will give several positions and also post photos with CS numbered on the board.

 

.

 

 

 

 

Briefly. It's stated that white has more CS. I intend posting another position at some point. CST has been promoted by Muller and Lamprecht after being mentioned by Averbakh in his work. I have to admit that my initial thoughts are that working out the CS requires analysis, so why bother with this numbering system in the first place ? In the above example white has won by triangulating, so is the consideration of CST an impractical overhead  ? - but another part of me says that I shouldn't be lazy and try and understand this....

Here's a more complicated position. Em Lasker v G Reichhelm 1901:

b5,g5 and h5 are  the key squares. The position is given has +/=. White can try bringing king through the Qside or Kside. If he is at square 1 (c4) and black moves to his square 1 (b6) we have equality. Same for square 6, h4 and g6. We are told that black has a surplus of CS on the kingside and so are not marked - consequently white must construct a "king dance" (I think I will copyright that ! :-)  )while both kings are on the qside to gain better position....

So, just reviewing a little first: When we first encounter king and pawn endgames, our first inclination is to move the king towards the enemy position as quickly as possible. As time goes on we learn about the opposition, the distant opposition and triangulation. A further evolution may be consideration of Corresponding Squares (CS) - (where reserve moves, attacks with tempo have been factored out). Concepts such as the anti opposition arise(?) from Corresonding Square Theory(CST).

Here is an exmple from the book. The author also gives several related positions and comes out what would be a mouthful to the uninitiated:

"...to discuss articles by Ebersz and Barath....about the role of 'geometrical opposition' in the theory of corresponding squares'....The interested reader should try to find out in which of the positions given above opposition plays a role and in which it doesn't "

 

(Once again I'm reminded of a chicken and egg situation that begs the usefulness of CST. Does analysis give the CS or does CST inform our analysis. If the former then why bother ?)

 

Just recently completed Kings and pawns endgame on chess mentor and video series and king and rooks endgames (with some pawns). Wanted to start from the bottom really and fill up holes in my theory and understanding. It's always good to know perfect fundamentals. And since after tactics everyone says learn endgames i did just that. But i found out that i was little wrong thinking it will be easy one. Infact king and pawns vs king and pawns is very , very dificult and no matter how much you memorize patterns you almost always have to think individually in positions. Ofcourse you will know ideas and some patterns but you always have to calculate. And my calculation is very poor. The problem with us bullet and blitz players only is we lack deep calculation. And not only that some problems are just too hard. So i advice lower rated than me to focus on tactics and if they want to study endgame - again focus on endgame tactics and fundamentals. Only after they imrpove their calculation then will be much mroe easy for them to dive in those endgames where you really have to calculate deep even if you know oppositions and other stuff. It's very very tricky. I have to go over again and watch 3 times all the videos on that topic and even then it will be hard when you have such positions over the board, again deep deep calculation is a must. No wonder why even "Experts" have no clue sometimes at those endings. But with the help of calculation position is little more clear. So point is before we start learning tricky hard endgames, improve your calculation! They often want to explain the endings first to beginners to understand value of pieces.. But why.. if low rated can't really calculate...

I think at first in chess you should study what you enjoy. There are players that wag their fingers and say "you sould study the endgame first etc etc"  Without enjoyment , where's the motivation ? So I agree.

I took a long time to study the endgame and also to make an effort to eat my greens. I came to the endgame in order to win. Once the hard work is ongoing, like any hard work, there can be satisfaction - just like getting up on a cold morning to go for a run. I disagree with the "finger waggers", and think it should come about by the individual players realisation.

On the subject of king and pawn endgames. A lot of the study material will be in near success/ near failure scenarios. In a real game, the chances are the play will be more one sided with the better endgame player effortlessly capitalising on mistakes.

The completely new player may initially regard the endgame as less complex because of more pieces - but because there are less pieces in the endgame there are more squares to think about ! The endgame also reminds me of checkers/draughts in that the onus is on looking deeper down analysis trees rather than wider.

Endgame competence has given me more confidence in this area and also increased my middlegame vision of what to head for. So , I suppose because I win more, eating my greens in one way or another has been useful

This is a well put together study. I do recall the first position from Dvoretsky's Endgame Manual. In my opinion, mastering the concept of corresponding squares in the most complex positions is the hardest thing to learn in king pawn endings. This post deserves more attention than it seems to have earned, as king and pawn endings are the most fundamental and critical endgame type to study. How does one understand how to play out endgames with pieces without the understanding of a winning liquidated position?

Also, you did mention that endgames are more complex than other phases. I know the point you are trying to make, but the more pieces on the board, the more complex the position tends to be. What you mean is that the endgame is the most precise phase of the game, as a very innocent looking error with little material remaining on the board may be far more decisive, going from a win to a draw or even a loss. Even experts and masters lose match points from time to time by small miscalculations in mere king pawn endings if not well prepared with endgame theory study!

Thanks for your comments Matthew.....

I've just started the puzzles section , which follows on from the text and discussions. This may be the most abstract part of chess theory I know about, and I again wonder what use it has. Never the less, I soldier on...

Here is the first one rated easy. I give the problem itself, then the numbered solution which is mind blowing - and I doubt if all but a few people could come up with it - not withstanding that the actual analysis may be in reach of many of us...

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I tried for a short while, but was no where near.....

Here is the explanation:

"Have you also drawn on the whole board ? Key squares are b3-d3 and f3-h3. Shortest ways are h5-g5-f6-(e5/e6)- d5-c4-b4 = h2-g1-(f1/f2)-(e1/e2)-(d1/d2)-c2-b2. It follows that there are no corresponding squares on the d,e and f files....

If black steps onto the a file, a counter attack against the unprotected f pawn is possible. The system of corresponding squares on both wings reach the baseline because white can't become active. But a defence on the key squares is possible. A possible continuation is..." see below

(This make me feel like giving up chess ! )

There has been previous discussion on CS:

https://www.chess.com/forum/view/endgames/corresponding-squares5?page=1

I think those tricky King and pawn endgames are rare under expert level or so. The game would be already decided by blunders by them. For example i can tell 1700-1800 blitz players here & Fide Arena (which when i check their otb rating is below 2000otb) have no idea really and make huge blunders in much more simple king and pawns endgame and game is over. And when we reach high enough level, hopefully our calculation and understanding will be much more better. Not saying we should abandon this type of endgames, no , i myself took course and i can solve around half of them. They are very importhant, but there a lot of really complex positions and i heard from Danny's videos and other Masters lessons they say they gave simular or even easier positions to ther students 1600-2000 rated and most of them fail even experts.

Here is example: 

Free Video Lesson by GM FineGold about pawn endings

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UnrMMktlpJo

Check 23:45

He says student over 2000 failed at very simple puzzle

Yes, this is true. However we get better by pushing ourselves - sometimes it may be necessary to experience a level of discomfort. Tricky endings are rare, but I like the idea of training harder for war, so when it comes, it becomes easier.

I shall be missing out the rest of the corresponding squares exercises in the book and ploughing on. For what it's worth my last FIDE rating was 1910.

In addition to Secrets of Pawn endings and your reference in Dvoretsky's book, this also appears in the two Germans' "Fundamental Chess Endings" manual as well, along with another scenario where Black has a draw in the same book.

 

The second position from the OP I actually saw a few years ago as a problem at the club I played at then, and I was the only one that figured it out and explained it via corresponding squares (had previously read the section in Fundamental Chess Endings).

 

Must admit I'm not familiar with the one in post 7.