Chapter 8 ROOK VS. PAWNS Practically all these endings are “rapid”; the outcome of the fight depends, as a rule, on a single tempo. We shall study typical techniques; mastering them does not free us from the neces- sity of deep and precise calculations, but makes this job much easier. Rook vs. Pawn “Moving Downstairs” First let us look at the rarest case, when a pawn is stronger than a rook. G Barbier, F. Saavedra, 1895 8-1 1 c7 Hd6+ 2 Qb5! (2 &c5? Bd1) 2...Hd5+ 3 Gb4 Hd4+ 4 Hb3 Hd3+ 5 Gc2 This maneuver, which helps the king to avoid checks, is what we call “moving down- stairs.” However the fight is not over for the moment. 5...Hd4! If 6 c8W? then 6...2c4+! 7 Wxc4 stalemate. 6 c8HN (A 7 Ha8+) 6...Ha4 7 Qb3t+— 8-2 1 Bgsi+- When the black pawn reaches a3 it will be abolished by means of E.g3 (the pawn may come even to a2 and then perish after Eg followed by Hal). With Black on move, after 1...b5(c5)! the position is drawn, because cutting the king off along the 4th rank brings nothing. Inthe starting position, let us movethe black king to c6 and the pawn to bS. The strongest move is still 1 Zg5!, but Black can respond with 1...b6. However the king transfer to the a-file loses time, and its position is less favorable there than on the c-file (where it “gives a shoulder kick” to the rival king). After 2 g7 @a5 3 &f6 White arrives in proper time to stop the pawn. Pawn Promotion to a Knight 1 Hh2+ Yel 2 Hc3 b1D+! 3 ds a3 4 Ha2 AbI1! leads to a draw. It is worth mentioning that the erroneous 4...DbS? loses the knight. In rook-versus-knight endings, one should not separate the knight from the king. Black can also save himself by stalemate: 1...b1! 2 b3 Wal! 3 Bxb2. However, with a bishop or a central pawn his only drawing pos- sibility is pawn-to-knight promotion. If he has a rook pawn instead, this method does not work. 1351 Oc4 a2 2 Hb3 al H+ 3 Yc30 +— By the way, an additional pawn at b5 could not have helped Black. 1 b4 a2 2 Wb3 al A+ 3 Hd b4t 4 Bxb4 He2+ 5 Yc3 He3 6 Hh4! (another option is 6 2d3 Od5 7 Eh4 @b2 8 Hd4 and the knight, being separated from the king, will die soon) 6...@a2 (6..Qd1+ 7 &d2 Hb2 8 Bb4 Ba2 9 Sc2 Bal 10 Hb8; 6...d5+ 7 &b3 Bel 8Bc4+ Gbl 9 Hd4) 7 Had+ Ob1 8 Hes HFS, 9 HeS d6 10 Mb3 Yel 11 hc5+ Hb1 12 Bd5+-. Stalemate We have already seen a case of stalemate that has practical value (diagram 8-3). The fol- lowing position is also worth keeping in mind. 8-6 B? @a25 Bb7© is hopeless. Correct is 1...b2! 2 Ab8+ (2 Bh2+ Sb3), rather than 2...b1? 3 Sc3) 2... el! 3 Ba8 Ob2 4 Od2 a2 5 Abs+ Wall. An Intermediate Check for a Gain of Tempo Korchnoi - Kengis Bern 1996 i? 2s gy Yr Ue & 7 ae Kengis resigned in this position, depriving his opponent of the opportunity to demonstrate an exemplary winning solution: 1..Qf2 2 BF8+! 28d3? g3 3 Bf8+ Gel! leads only toa draw. 2... Ge2 3 Best G3 Because of the intermediate check, White succeeded in driving the opposite king back one square, from f2 to £3. 4.@d3 g3 5 BES+ gz 6 we2t-. Shouldering 8-8 1 Bh2+ a3! Black achieves a draw by not allowing the white king to approach the pawn. 1...¥7b1? is erroneous in view of 2 &b3 alO+ 3 Bc3. Let us look at a slightly more complicated 1...a2? 2 Bb8+ Ga3 3 Wc2! alO+ 4 Gc3 case in the following diagram. 136I. Maizelis, 1950 1...a5? is bad because of 2 Hh5! (cutting the king off). However 1...89b5? 2 7 a5 3 #e6 a4 4 8d5 is no better. Only 1...@c5! holds. Black does not al- low the white king to approach his pawn. Outflanking Shouldering and outflanking ideas are dis- tinctly represented in the following famous endgame study. R. Réti, 1928 8-10 Ww? 1 Hd2(d3)" d4 2 Radi! ds 3 hd7! Black is in zugzwang: if 3...2c4, then 4 eb and if 3...8e4, 4 G6. 1 Bd? is erroneous: 1...d4 2&d7 (2 &f7 Sed 3 Heb d3) 2...82d51 (Black prevents an out- flanking) 3 87 Bc5! (3.84? 4 $d6! d3 5 e5), and it is White who has fallen into zugzwang. Tragicomedies Neumann - Steinitz Baden-Baden 1870 18f8 The simplest way is 1 &g8! %g6 2 @h8=. 1... £6 2 g84)+! Geb 3 Hh6 Hh7 4 Dear? As we already know, after 4 Sg8! the game would have been drawn. Now White is lost. 4...8h4 4,..h3! could have won immediately. 5 Qe3 (5 Df2 Bf4+) 5...He4 6 Hdl Bf4+ 7 Og7 B38 Og6 8 Db2 Bd5 9 Dad Bb3 A 10...kd4 and 11...8b4 makes no difference. 8...He5 9 Og5 Sd4 10 Hg4 Hf 11 @b2 Bb1 12 Ha4 Bb4 White resigned. Fries-Nielsen — Plachetka Rimavska Sobota 1991 ZT. UBT, Ja, 8-12 “, a ayy \ oe ; on D The actual continuation was 1 @c6? h5= 2 @d5 h4 3 Yes h3 4 He3 Yg3 5 Hel h2 6 Se2 Gg27 Bhi Sxh1 8 Gl Draw. 1 Be8? is no better: 1...n5 2 Bg8+ Gf3 3 Bh8 Gg4 4 tc6 h4 5 Gd5 h3 6 Ged Hg37 %e3 &g2i (rather than 7...h27? 8 Hg8+ #h3 9 $f2 h1D+ 10 SF3 Yh2 11 Bg7o) 8 Bgs+ fll= or 8 Ge2h2 9 Bgs+ Shil=. White should have gained a tempo by means of the intermediate check: 1 Bg2+! f4 (after Vay fl, wi w? ve Mi “ 137;