why did I lose this game

I go into the end game with a material advantage and a bishop v a knight with pawns on both sides of the board. I have a preponderance of good Kingside pawns v weak and isolated pawns and its annoying as all get out to lose it.



I was black.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
I go into the end game with a material advantage and a bishop v a knight with pawns on both sides of the board. I have a preponderance of good Kingside pawns v weak and isolated pawns and its annoying as all get out to lose it.

[pgn][Event "Clan challenge"] [Site "http://www.timeforchess.com"] [Date "2014.06.19"] [EndDate "2014.07.15"] [Round "?" ...[text shortened]... 5d3 50. Kc5d4 Bd3b5 51. Ne4d6 Bb5e2 52. Kd4e3 Be2f1 53. b5 axb5 54. a6 1-0[/pgn]

I was black.

I'm not sure i agree with the decision to remove the Rooks, the weakness of your c-pawn was your undoing in the end. How about 30..h6. I know it might look like a waste, but your back rank is weak. Removing the risk from the position is really helpful i feel. What does white have in reply? He can't save the d-pawn, he is almost forced to walk into a check on d2 as his pieces are all tied up. Giving the move back to white is actually quite problematic..

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
I go into the end game with a material advantage and a bishop v a knight with pawns on both sides of the board. I have a preponderance of good Kingside pawns v weak and isolated pawns and its annoying as all get out to lose it.


I was black.

You say: I go into the end game with a material advantage and a bishop v a knight with pawns on both sides of the board. I have a preponderance of good Kingside pawns v weak and isolated pawns.

Clearly this assessment is wrong. The extra pawn is shaky as c4 is two King moves from attack and if the Bishop protects then it will be harassed by the knight. In correspondence conditions this is calculable if you want to make the effort. Even if some kingside distraction manages to save the pawn the queening square is the wrong colour for the bishop so it is more of a liability than an advantage.

The key danger, as you found out, was the dynamic possibility of creating a passed pawn on the queen-side available to White.

I won't go as far as to say this endgame is lost for Black but its a lot more difficult to play than the position a few moves previous with the Rooks on.

I have faced players over the board who play quietly and aim to get that a+b pawn vs a pawn queen-side pawn majority fairly early in the game. They then exchange all the pieces except a bishop or something and win trivially it is so strong. Once you have lost to it once you might remember when you see it in the pawns and then you have to kick, bite and scream to stop it happening again.

Originally posted by Ragwort
[fen]5k2/5ppp/p3p3/4Pb2/1Pp5/P7/4NP1P/4K3 w - - 0 35[/fen]

You say: I go into the end game with a material advantage and a bishop v a knight with pawns on both sides of the board. I have a preponderance of good Kingside pawns v weak and isolated pawns.

Clearly this assessment is wrong. The extra pawn is shaky as c4 is two King moves from attack and i ...[text shortened]... n you see it in the pawns and then you have to kick, bite and scream to stop it happening again.

I have a material advantage, I am a pawn up! That assessment is not wrong, its a fact! I do have a preponderance of kingside pawns. I played bravely as a chess player should! creatively I took a risk and created a passed pawn, my idea being that it should tie the white King down to its defence! Was this not logical? reasonable? Capablanca himself could not have conceived of a more cunning plan! My mistake was that I simply did not play the most forcing continuation,

Originally posted by Marinkatomb
I'm not sure i agree with the decision to remove the Rooks, the weakness of your c-pawn was your undoing in the end. How about 30..h6. I know it might look like a waste, but your back rank is weak. Removing the risk from the position is really helpful i feel. What does white have in reply? He can't save the d-pawn, he is almost forced to walk into a chec ...[text shortened]... d2 as his pieces are all tied up. Giving the move back to white is actually quite problematic..

Actually it was risky I admit.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
I have a material advantage, I am a pawn up! That assessment is not wrong, its a fact! I do have a preponderance of kingside pawns. I played bravely as a chess player should! creatively I took a risk and created a passed pawn, my idea being that it should tie the white King down to its defence! Was this not logical? reasonable? Capablanca himsel ...[text shortened]... h5{and white is more roasty toasty than a marshmallow at a marshmallow roasting festival}[/pgn]

I have a material advantage, I am a pawn up! That assessment is not wrong, its a fact! I do have a preponderance of kingside pawns.

Being material ahead is not the same as having an advantage. Your extra K-side pawns couldn't be quickly mobilized his queenside ones could. You should have avoided letting the b-pawn be turned into a c-pawn by taking first.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
I have a material advantage, I am a pawn up! That assessment is not wrong, its a fact! I do have a preponderance of kingside pawns. I played bravely as a chess player should! creatively I took a risk and created a passed pawn, my idea being that it should tie the white King down to its defence! Was this not logical? reasonable? Capablanca himsel ...[text shortened]... h5{and white is more roasty toasty than a marshmallow at a marshmallow roasting festival}[/pgn]

Haha, i saw this combination but it got it into my head that white had a back rank mate threat that stopped you playing ..Rh4. Yes this is winning.

Originally posted by DeepThought

I have a material advantage, I am a pawn up! That assessment is not wrong, its a fact! I do have a preponderance of kingside pawns.

Being material ahead is not the same as having an advantage. Your extra K-side pawns couldn't be quickly mobilized his queenside ones could. You should have avoided letting the b-pawn be turned into a c-pawn by taking first.

Dude it was nan inspired choice! brave and creative, never the less as Raggy says my pawn turned out to be a liability rather than a strength, treachery was afoot, but had I played the most forcing line I would be crowing like a cockerel upon the farm fence rather than moping around like a goat shaped daemon!

Originally posted by Marinkatomb
Haha, i saw this combination but it got it into my head that white had a back rank mate threat that stopped you playing ..Rh4. Yes this is winning.

Actually between you and I, (squints his eyes and looks left and right) I was scared of the knight coming to b3 and then c5!

On move 38 you moved your king backward rather than advancing your pawn. On move 44, you moved your king back to the square it was at in the previous move. Also, a lot of moveswere spent defending a pawn with the bishop that got lost anyway.

I think your main issue was tempo. If you felt that you had a pawn advantage, maybe gunning for a queen would've been your best strategy. Maybe you could've sac'd the bishop in exchange for tempo toward a queen.

Originally posted by vivify
On move 38 you moved your king backward rather than advancing your pawn. On move 44, you moved your king back to the square it was at in the previous move. Also, a lot of moveswere spent defending a pawn with the bishop that got lost anyway.

I think your main issue was tempo. If you felt that you had a pawn advantage, maybe gunning for a queen would'v ...[text shortened]... n your best strategy. Maybe you could've sac'd the bishop in exchange for tempo toward a queen.

yes playing f6 was better but conceptually i did not envision it at the time, but it was better than passively moving my king. I did eventually give up the pawn in an attempt to blockade the kingside pawns but by then it was too late .

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
yes playing f6 was better but conceptually i did not envision it at the time, but it was better than passively moving my king. I did eventually give up the pawn in an attempt to blockade the kingside pawns but by then it was too late .

Also, on move 49, you needlessly moved your bishop. Doing so left it open for attack, and you moved it back to the b5 square, only to move again when it was attacked by the knight. That's a loss of three tempii which ended up in the pawn that the bishop was defending being lost anyway (white chose to move toward queening rather than taking the undefended pawn, but still). Counting the two king moves I mentioned earlier, that's five tempii lost. The endgame could've turned out much differently if those five moves were spent getting a queen.

Originally posted by vivify
Also, on move 49, you needlessly moved your bishop. Doing so left it open for attack, and you moved it back to the b5 square, only to move again when it was attacked by the knight. That's a loss of three tempii which ended up in the pawn that the bishop was defending being lost anyway (white chose to move toward queening rather than taking the undefended pa ...[text shortened]... The endgame could've turned out much differently if those five moves were spent getting a queen.

You are worse than Tarrasch, he was obsessed with space and you are obsessed with tempi and NO I would have won the game if i had played the most forcing continuation as I illustrated, these tempi were meaningless. The critical point was creating a passed pawn for it would either subdue white or make the prospect of white being able to create a passed pawn of his own more realistic.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
You are worse than Tarrasch, he was obsessed with space and you are obsessed with tempi and NO I would have won the game if i had played the most forcing continuation as I illustrated, these tempi were meaningless. The critical point was creating a passed pawn for it would either subdue white or make the prospect of white being able to create a passed pawn of his own more realistic.

Wasted moves are significant, especially in an end game.

Originally posted by vivify
Wasted moves are significant, especially in an end game.

OK ill take the medicine and the sentiments are appreciated, thanks.