Chess Master Brian Wall Trading Down to the Endgame
One of the keys to becoming a better chess player is knowing when and when not to trade down into an endgame. If there is a problem in your position, often you want to trade down, thinking that will solve it. But all that does is highlight it. It makes the position simpler for you to think about, but at the same time makes the problem in your position much, much bigger. You cleared away everything so you could focus on it, but in an almost metaphysical way, by the same token, made the position simpler by making your problem the only thing on the board. It has nearly philosophical, or perhaps the better word is karmic implications. The chess gods say "Oh, you want things simpler so you can think about your problem? Ok. Now you have nothing but your problem."
Here is an example from a real game, only, in this game I didn't really understand the nature of my problem. Had I known what a real issue it was, I might not have traded. However, the truth was I did know, or at least sense that I had this issue, because I knew that I could not initiate the trade. They call this negative tension. I have tension but my opponent does not. Here is a picture of the position where I chose to trade all the way in to a lost rook ending. Negative Tension Negative Tension
There is negative tension between the pawns on a4 and b5, and this is a difficulty for Black. If I trade pieces as Black, which I did in this game, especially if I trade queens and bring White's rook to e5, then I have a lost endgame even though it looks even from here. The material is equal. But the c-pawn will eventually fall, and the fewer pieces there are on the board, the more important each of these difficulties become. Therefore it is not in Black's interest to trade. I did trade down in this endgame, and lost inevitably. I might have been able to survive had my opponent misplayed it, but he did not. This game, and the way it was lost is very instructive about endgames. All White has to do is double his rooks on the fifth rank, threatening to win the pawn on the c-file, which will be all that is left once the trades between the "a" and "b" pawns is intitiated by White. Then by placing his (very active) rook from the e-file to the c-file my black rooks will be passive and reduced to waiting for his king to come to the center. Meanwhile my king cannot approach, due to the ensuing check and subsequent win of the pawn on the f-file. It all falls like dominos once the queens and bishop and knight are all traded.
By understanding these things, the lost or won endgame positions that will exist after trades are made, middle game decisions can be made using good chess judgement. The "C" Pawn Will Fall
There is no way to protect it. White can initiate the trade anytime he wants to and Black can't, yet another example of negative tension. Black must sit and wait for White to trade when it is best for him, and yet Black can't do much to make the situation better for himself when the trade comes. He can't get the king closer without jeapordizing his f-pawn. He doesn't really want to push the f-pawn either, because then none of them can protect each other and as well, the black king can no longer hide behind one of them. He has two back ranks to worry about instead of one. However, perhaps that would have better than what was played. He was lost anyway, sitting and waiting for the inevitable approach of the white king. Then when the king is close enough to be able to guard the doubled pawns that will result from the rook trade and subsequent placing of the white rook on the c-file, guarded by the d-pawn, then it will be time to trade them. It is almost better not to trade. To just let the pawn fall and keep the rooks on the board. At least then Black might have had drawing chances. But then again, against two pawns it would be hard. But Black would have had an active rook, and could have at least maybe stirred up some trouble.
Instruktywne video o koncowkach szachowych!
ReplyDeleteChess Master Brian Wall
ReplyDeleteTrading Down to the Endgame
One of the keys to becoming a better chess player is knowing when and when not to trade down into an endgame. If there is a problem in your position, often you want to trade down, thinking that will solve it. But all that does is highlight it. It makes the position simpler for you to think about, but at the same time makes the problem in your position much, much bigger. You cleared away everything so you could focus on it, but in an almost metaphysical way, by the same token, made the position simpler by making your problem the only thing on the board. It has nearly philosophical, or perhaps the better word is karmic implications. The chess gods say "Oh, you want things simpler so you can think about your problem? Ok. Now you have nothing but your problem."
Here is an example from a real game, only, in this game I didn't really understand the nature of my problem. Had I known what a real issue it was, I might not have traded. However, the truth was I did know, or at least sense that I had this issue, because I knew that I could not initiate the trade. They call this negative tension. I have tension but my opponent does not. Here is a picture of the position where I chose to trade all the way in to a lost rook ending.
Negative Tension
Negative Tension
There is negative tension between the pawns on a4 and b5, and this is a difficulty for Black. If I trade pieces as Black, which I did in this game, especially if I trade queens and bring White's rook to e5, then I have a lost endgame even though it looks even from here. The material is equal. But the c-pawn will eventually fall, and the fewer pieces there are on the board, the more important each of these difficulties become. Therefore it is not in Black's interest to trade. I did trade down in this endgame, and lost inevitably. I might have been able to survive had my opponent misplayed it, but he did not. This game, and the way it was lost is very instructive about endgames. All White has to do is double his rooks on the fifth rank, threatening to win the pawn on the c-file, which will be all that is left once the trades between the "a" and "b" pawns is intitiated by White. Then by placing his (very active) rook from the e-file to the c-file my black rooks will be passive and reduced to waiting for his king to come to the center. Meanwhile my king cannot approach, due to the ensuing check and subsequent win of the pawn on the f-file. It all falls like dominos once the queens and bishop and knight are all traded.
By understanding these things, the lost or won endgame positions that will exist after trades are made, middle game decisions can be made using good chess judgement.
The "C" Pawn Will Fall
There is no way to protect it. White can initiate the trade anytime he wants to and Black can't, yet another example of negative tension. Black must sit and wait for White to trade when it is best for him, and yet Black can't do much to make the situation better for himself when the trade comes. He can't get the king closer without jeapordizing his f-pawn. He doesn't really want to push the f-pawn either, because then none of them can protect each other and as well, the black king can no longer hide behind one of them. He has two back ranks to worry about instead of one. However, perhaps that would have better than what was played. He was lost anyway, sitting and waiting for the inevitable approach of the white king. Then when the king is close enough to be able to guard the doubled pawns that will result from the rook trade and subsequent placing of the white rook on the c-file, guarded by the d-pawn, then it will be time to trade them. It is almost better not to trade. To just let the pawn fall and keep the rooks on the board. At least then Black might have had drawing chances. But then again, against two pawns it would be hard. But Black would have had an active rook, and could have at least maybe stirred up some trouble.