Building Fortresses in Chess!

Hi friends,

I have always been fascinated by Fortresses in chess, where one side deficit in material builts a position with the reamining pieces that is impossible to penetrate by the stronger side. Should probably be the most aesthetic side of chess!.

Was just thinking wouldnt it be nice to have a list of fortresses that we know or have played or seen or even constructed in our minds. I am sure there must be simple fortresses with 3 pieces to complex fortresses with many pieces on board. But the aim is it shouldnt be penetratable at any cost.

One that comes immediately to mind.

You are welcome to share your fortress ideas.

Cheers,

Arun

Actually, the first one is a win for White. This fortress idea has been busted.

According to Nalimov, White has a win in 55 starting with Qg2.

Busted by rybka 4.0!

Another one. This should also qualify as a fortress right?. This is a fortress with a deficit of 4 points (with 1,3,3,5,9 convention). Anyone to better :).

Cheers,

Arun

Was just wondering if 55 moves without a pawn move considered as a draw from this position?

I haven't played it through, but you provbably force a pawn move somewhere.

One of my recent over the board tournament games -- I was white and managed to reach this position in the end.  My opponent tried to break it down for another 50 moves or so.

I disagree with Nalimov. Whites king is on the wrong side of that rook, so as it is out of play entirely. It must stay in the cage between  d4 & a1 it can not effect the game at all.

That leaves the white queen with the job of seperating the black king from the f6 pawn all by herself and this is impossible if black plays good.

Black is in no danger in this position if black plays solid, white is not a threat,

Post the entire line, it must have a blunder by black

I know it's old, and you're all getting tired of seeing it, but it fits the topic too well to be omitted:

My Bongcloud Fortress Variation L01

"The tablebase contains the game-theoretical value (win, loss, or draw) of each possible move in each possible position, and how many moves it would take to achieve that result with perfect play. Thus, the tablebase acts as an oracle, always providing the optimal moves. Typically the database records each possible position with certain pieces remaining on the board, and the best moves with White to move and with Black to move."

I guess it isn't obvious why this fortress can be broken.  Yes the Rook in front of a pawn like that is a type of fortress, but the specific position you give is not a true fortress.  A bishop's pawn cannot be on the 6th rank in this type of fortress, if it is the fortress can be broken down.  Philidor showed a similar position back in 1777.

As Dvoretsky states: In the following position White's plan is

1)To occupy squares behind the pawn, with the help of zugzwang, and drive the black king out to d5 where he obstructs his own rook.

2)To cross the 5th rank with his king.

3) To break through with the king to the e-file and the pawn.

I am glad to see nobody disagrees with my fortress.

Well, I'll tell you, I wont resign as Black! White will have to show me, even if he's a GM :)

I was wrong, but seriously 99.9% of Humans w/o looking directly at a table base are not going to be able to to win that game against solid play. A queen vs rook endgame is hard enough as is if u have the queen, adding that pawn into the mix seemed like enough to hold back the queen but after about an hour of analyzing the table base for it, it is fairly clear the queen has a win.

However if the black pieces were all back 1 rank it is a draw.

I know -- and there are some who say just because they lived 200 years ago there was no way for them to be any good without knowing basics like bishops are worth more than rooks.  It's laughable.

Well how the hell do you think we know it today?  People back then were good because they analysed everything -- they would destroy mere masters today.  I think it was Yermolinsky and some other Russian GM got together in their youth shared a room and set out to analyze "all" rook and pawn endgames to their conclusion.  After months and months of discovery and analysis they found out there were actually rook and pawn endgame books out there.  Still, not at all a waste, I'm sure they learned them well.

This is how all top players used to do things -- they weren't dummies about basics.

A lecture on fortresses by Australian FM Chris Wallis:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MLYl-cfGfcE&list=UUJ7Ogp96NhyVMx6ZoRg8AfA