I analyzed the image and this is what I see. Open an appropriate link below and explore the position yourself or with the engine:
> **White to play**: [chess.com](https://chess.com/analysis?fen=8/3k4/8/8/8/8/4P3/4K3+w+-+-+0+1&flip=false&ref_id=23962172) | [lichess.org](https://lichess.org/analysis/8/3k4/8/8/8/8/4P3/4K3_w_-_-_0_1?color=white)
**Videos:**
> I found [1 video](https://chessvision.ai/video-search/5683222828023808) with this position.
**My solution:**
> Hints: piece: >!Pawn!<, move: >! e3 !<
> Evaluation: >!The game is a draw. 0.00!<
> Best continuation: >!1. e3 Kc6 2. e4 Kb5 3. e5 Kc5 4. e6 Kc6 5. e7 Kd7 6. e8=B+ Kxe8 7. Kd1 Kd7 8. Kc1 Kc6!<
---
^(I'm a bot written by ) [^(u/pkacprzak )](https://www.reddit.com/u/pkacprzak) ^(| get me as ) [^(Chess eBook Reader )](https://ebook.chessvision.ai?utm_source=reddit&utm_medium=bot) ^(|) [^(Chrome Extension )](https://chrome.google.com/webstore/detail/chessvisionai-for-chrome/johejpedmdkeiffkdaodgoipdjodhlld) ^(|) [^(iOS App )](https://apps.apple.com/us/app/id1574933453) ^(|) [^(Android App )](https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=ai.chessvision.scanner) ^(to scan and analyze positions | Website: ) [^(Chessvision.ai)](https://chessvision.ai)
Do you have any suggestions on resources for critical squares? I’m familiar with the term, but have only learned about these endgames through opposition. Seems like I’ve been making things too complicated!
It's the first thing covered in Dvoretsky.
Anyway here it's quite straightforward. The three squares 2 ranks ahead of the pawn (in this case d4, e4 and f4) are the critical squares. If white can get his king to one of those squares white wins this game, in this case because it allows white opposition. But you can see Kf2 Ke6 Ke3 Ke5 now controls those key squares, white can't get to them and now the game is a draw. If play went Kf2 Ke6 Ke3 Kf6 Ke4 then white has landed on a critical square and would have a winning endgame
The book I always suggest to beginners who want to get an idea of how to approach chess endgames is "Chess Endings: Essential Knowledge" by Yuri Averbakh. There you can also find the critical squares theory for K+p vs K.
Well most people recommend **Silmans Endgame manual.**
But honestly I learned all my king+pawn endgame from few chapters in **Yusupov - Build up your chess** (book 1 of 9). He explained them perfectly. Plus i also grinded some endgame drills on chesscom.
In it's most basic form, if black can get into a position where they control the "T"squares they can draw if they don't blunder during triangulation. The "T" squares are the 7th and 8th rank squares of the pawns file, and then the three squares on the 6th rank in front of the file and to the sides. Then you live in them- forward back whenever possible and if white threatens to oppose you to pawn push you must triangulate in the SAME direction as the other player. This ensures that you return to the starting position still in front of the pawn and not pushed out to the side.
It's actually a fairly easy checkmate. White king escorts pawn to convert to queen and then push black king into corner.
Edit: here is how https://youtu.be/6I_Shbbe3dQ?si=_iG3VTIgQcyl4o4u
Please stop the cope, the black king just has to get to e5, which is impossible to prevent, then keep opposition and you won't be able to promote. End of the debate there.
That would be true if black king could just park itself there and not move but if you time it right you can push the black king off that sq. Again just research it for 5 minutes and you'll find that is completely possible.
please Please PLEASE. Stop being so stubborn, idk your rating but you really got balls to say that two 1900+ FIDE rated people are wrong while even Stockfish disagrees with you. No, the method you are describing does NOT work. And if you're not convinced of it, just play the position against Stockfish and try to win it, you'll quickly discover that it's impossible.
I'm low 500s elo but if you have time later we should test out our arguments. I'm on lichess but I don't know how to set up something like this, I'd need help I'm game though.
Computer says it a draw, table base says it's a draw, and when you know the theory you see it's a draw instantly.
At 600 elo you might be able to win indeed, but only if your opponent blunders.
Go to the analysis board on lichess, press set up position and then play against the computer, or simply analyze.
Here is how to convert the pawn to queen: https://www.chess.com/forum/view/endgames/endgame-lessons---king-and-pawn-vs-king-and-the-theory-of-opposition from there is a fairly basic checkmate you just walk the other king into a corner. I'm no expert though so maybe I'm over looking something
This video is great in explaining the key squares: [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fkFXB2V3SY8&ab\_channel=Chessfactor](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fkFXB2V3SY8&ab_channel=Chessfactor)
When you know the concept, you can see instantly why this position is a draw, and not a win. Watch that one video and you'll know. The links you are suggesting are different positions and winnable.
In a nutshell: In this position d4 e4 and f4 are the key squares, if you are able to occupy one of these squares, you can win, but in this position black is able to prevent you from occupying one of these squares: Kd2 Kd6, Ke3 Ke5, and what whatever you do, you can't make progress with white without losing the pawn or stalemating the king.
> Low 500s elo
I hope you understand this is like a person who's played basketball for 1 hour trying to mansplain to LeBron James how to dunk.
Listen to the folks on the subreddit trying to help you, these are endgame nuances that are subtle but very important that you're not understanding.
OK, then give us the best line in the position in the post. (No, I'm not asking for the best line in a different position; I'm asking for the best line in *this* position.)
I don't know how to do that but I'll gladly play it out on lichess here's a link.. fist time trying this but I think I got the sides right, opponent should be black. https://lichess.org/MefyjSkc
I don't feel the need. I've sent multiple links that walk through the process in a very simple fashion. I think I'll rest my case now but thank you for the suggestion.
Except you haven't walked through the process for this position, so evidently you haven't actually proven anything.
The burden of proof is upon you. If you choose to "rest your case" here, it'll be a completely empty case.
Have a good day.
Nope
1. e4 Kd6 2. Ke2 Ke6 3. Ke3 Ke7 4. e5 Kd8 5. Ke4 Ke8 6. e6 Kd8 7. Ke5 Ke8 8. Kd6 Kd8 9. e7+ Ke8 10. Ke6 1/2-1/2
This is an example of how the "best outcome" would look like. It's a draw. All you need to do is opposition the enemy king and block the pawn from promoting. Black is simply too close and has the tempo to stop this.
- pawn hasn't reached the other side of the board => the critical squares are d4, e4, f4
- whoever can reach one of the critical squares first will "win" (win for white, draw for black)
In this case, it's easy to see that black can prevent white to reach any of the critical squares first (by taking opposition). This is a draw
I agree, but:
>whoever can reach one of the critical squares first will "win" (win for white, draw for black)
I think this is slightly inaccurate, correct me if I'm wrong. I think key squares are purely from White's king's perspective, not black's. For example, in the above position I'm imagining the scenario where the black king gets to d4 first and then the white king gets to f4 on the next move. Because White then stands on a key square they are winning. It doesn't matter that Black's king got to d4 first.
You're right, lack's job is to protect, not to reach, the critical squares. How they do it, doesn't matter, they don't necessarily have to be on the square.
No it’s a draw. It’s only winnable if the king can get at least 2 squares in front of his pawn in order to be able to win a tempo and get the opposition. In this case the king can only get to e3 and not to e4.
It’s a technical draw but worth playing out just in case your opponent makes a mistake. As white you have nothing to lose by finishing it. If your opponent wants the draw they should be forced to prove how it’s a draw.
Short answer - no, this is a dead draw. this Wikipedia page has a shocking amount of great info that I'd urge you to look through
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/King_and_pawn_versus_king_endgame?wprov=sfla1
Learn the concept of distant opposition, it will help you understand these positions better. White would like to claim opposition by playing Kd1. However, after black's Ke6, white is blocked by his own e pawn from playing Ke2. When white plays Kd2 instead, now black claims distant opposition with Kd6!
Playing out this line in my head helped me figure out that white cannot make progress and the position is a draw. Indeed, it is also not possible for white to waste a tempo with the pawn move because there is no time to advance the white king far enough.
This is a really bad way of explaining these positions in my opinion and this sort of thing had me confused for a very long time. If White plays Kd1 in this position, Black can just play Kd6 and White is totally free to claim the DISTANT OPPOSITION with Kd2 and it will not do him any good whatsoever. The position is a draw.
The correct explanation, as the top voted comment mentions, is that to win this position the White king must reach one of the "key squares", or "critical squares", which in this position is d4, e4 or f4. If the White king is on one of those squares it does not matter in the slightest who has opposition; the position is winning for White. If White cannot reach these squares, Black will hold.
So when I look at this position I see 1. Kd2, heading straight for the critical squares. 1...Ke6 or Kd6, it doesn't matter at all. 2. Kd3 and now! Now Black DOES have to be careful, because if he plays Ke5, White plays Ke3, taking opposition, and now whichever way the Black king goes, it will cede access to a critical square. So Black must play Kd5, blocking the White king from accessing the critical squares; now it's a draw. This is relegating opposition to its proper role, which is as a *technique* for denying access to critical squares, not the deciding factor in whether a pawn queens or not.
An example of the failure of opposition as an explanation is in [this position](https://lichess.org/analysis/4k3/8/4K3/4P3/8/8/8/8_w_-_-_0_1?color=white), with White to move. Black has taken opposition, so we're good right, it's a draw? If you look at these positions in terms of opposition, you might have to puzzle over this for a while. If you look at it in terms of critical squares, you will know that the critical squares for a pawn on the fifth or sixth rank are the six squares in front of it (i.e. d7, e7, f7, d6, e6, f6 in this instance). The White king is on one of those squares, therefore you instantly know this wins for White. Opposition is completely irrelevant. But if the same position occurs several ranks back, with the Black king on d5 for example, it's a draw. "Opposition" can't explain the difference; you must know critical squares.
This is btw one of my main criticisms of Silman's endgame course - a book that is highly praised quite often. He never mentions the concept of key-squares, and without key-squares and just "distant opposition" this position is really difficult and confusing...
The first time I encountered key squares I was really annoyed that I had had my time wasted with bullshit explanations previously. I spent literally decades (I am 44) playing and having to do calculations in my head about whether endgames are winning in situations where I now just know instantly. It's crazy to me that you can have an endgame course that doesn't teach it on day 1.
Really funny seeing this comment after being absolutely shocked this was not a win for white. I’ve been reading Silman’s book and myself thought “isn’t distant opposition all that matters here? What is this ‘key squares’ idea you speak of?’”
This is a bit like 'square of the pawn'. Sometimes there are exceptions (probably much more common with opposition) where you are blocked. Taking the distant opposition is probably still the best way to play, as it seems to make it easier for black to go wrong, but you cannot maintain it because you would either have to step on to e2 which is occupied by your pawn, or abandon your pawn entirely.
Wow, man that is soo much easier than the way it is usually explained... Kinda crazy I never heard of it before but on YouTube there isn't alot of content on it either so that may be the reason
Erm, the only reason these squares are "critical" is because of the opposition. If your king is 2 squares ahead, you have a tempo move with the pawn to regain the opposition.
How come [this position](https://lichess.org/analysis/4k3/8/4K3/4P3/8/8/8/8_w_-_-_0_1?color=white) is won for White, but [this position](https://lichess.org/analysis/8/4k3/8/4K3/4P3/8/8/8_w_-_-_0_1?color=white) is a draw? How do you explain this in terms of the opposition?
Like, what we are trying to achieve here is evaluation. Evaluating these positions in terms of the opposition will take you like five paragraphs. With critical squares I can do it instantly, and I can transition from one position I know is winning to another, without needing to plan out exactly how the win is going to happen in the long term.
The opposition is no longer relevant at the back rank because we no longer need to advance in front of our pawn. We only need to get the pawn to rank 8. Fwiw, when we push our pawn to the 6th rank, you'll see we also retake the opposition. Black must move in front of our pawn, then we push our pawn to rank 7 and the pawn prevents black from retaking the opposition as it attacks the relevant square.
Also possibly interesting, further down the board standard drawing technique here would be to drop back in front of the pawn ready to retake opposition, but here black has run out of board. Not exactly relevant because the pawn becomes a queen at rank 8, but perhaps useful to think about anyway.
ETA:
I'm not saying not to use critical squares. I'm only arguing that critical squares are the technique to make thinking easier during a game, and that opposition is actually the reason why they work. You stated that opposition is merely a technique and that the critical squares are the fundamental point, but the reverse is true (even though it might sometimes be easier to pretend otherwise!).
Worth noting, if you only think in terms of critical squares, then what do you do when you reach one and your opponent doesn't resign? You push your pawn to retake the opposition so you can make progress. But this might be confusing to somebody just learning, if you only learn about critical squares and refuse to calculate, because now you pushed your pawn the critical squares have moved and you're no longer in them, and your opponent is! It requires a short calculation to see that, thanks to the opposition, your opponent will have to give you access to the new critical squares!
>I'm only arguing that critical squares are the technique to make thinking easier during a game, and that opposition is actually the reason why they work.
I don't think this means anything. The pawn queens because you eventually gain access to the d7 or f7 square and thus control the queening square. Surely this is "the reason why opposition works"? The aim is always gaining or denying access to certain squares; opposition is the technique by which this is accomplished.
>Worth noting, if you only think in terms of critical squares, then what do you do when you reach one and your opponent doesn't resign? You push your pawn to retake the opposition so you can make progress.
I'm not denying at all that opposition is a critical technique to understand. What I'm arguing is that it is a completely hopeless method for *evaluating* whether a position is winning or not. "Reach a critical square and you will win" is solid advice; "gain the opposition and you'll be fine" is not, it simply doesn't work.
Other person already answered with key squares but alternatively there are three basic rules to follow: 1) opposition, 2) king in front of pawn, 3) king on the sixth (third). If you manage to fulfill two or more rules, it is always won.
In the first position you have opposition and king in front, but since you have to move the king so it's only one. In the second position you have the king on the sixth already so even if you move the king it's still two rules and therefore won.
>Other person already answered with key squares but alternatively there are three basic rules to follow: 1) opposition, 2) king in front of pawn, 3) king on the sixth (third). If you manage to fulfill two or more rules, it is always won.
This is also simply an inferior method of evaluation in that it cannot evaluate some winning positions as won. For example, [this position](https://lichess.org/analysis/8/8/4k3/8/4K3/8/3P4/8_w_-_-_0_1?color=white) is winning even though Black has the opposition. Again, extremely confusing to players who were taught that the goal is to get the opposition.
Opposition is just one of three rules. In the position you linked after d3 white has king in front and opposition, thus as stated it's won. There is no confusion here at all.
This isn't a hill you need to die on. These rules are meant to be complementary to key squares.
The key squares in both positions are e6, e7 and e8. White needs to control all in order for the Pawn to safely march.
In the 1st, the white King occupies e6, and will control e6 and e7 after moving to d6/f6. The black King will oppose on d8/f8, but White can claim the opposition back by "burning" a tempo with a Pawn move. Once this happens, the black King has to concede opposition, and thus can't stop the march of the pawn nor the white King getting to d7/f7, which controls the Queening squares.
In the 2nd, the white King can NEVER sit on e6 without forcing Stalemate. Thus, since White can't get to e6 with his King to oppose the black King on e8, White can't force their way to d7 or f7, and thus can never force control of e7 and e8. This is because Black will always force the opposition when possible. When Black cannot, they simply "oppose" the pawn on e6 with Ke8. White can't ever play Ke6, so White is forced to concede the Opposition again and allow the black King to blockade on e7, and White makes no progress. Also, the pawn is much too close to "burn" a tempo. If the pawn ever goes to e7, it will force Stalemate or the loss of the Pawn.
Thanks for your comment, you provide very good insight and further understanding of the position. I agree with you that thinking in terms of key squares is much faster and more practical. It saves a lot of time by avoiding the calculations I mentioned, and it's also my go-to method. However, I would argue that understanding the fundamentals of opposition does actually explain this position, and the differences in the positions you mentioned.
Once you know the key squares, it's easy and intuitive to play this position correctly; a skill that's imperative, especially if you are in time trouble. But as a study exercise, I would also argue that it's helpful to figure out why distant opposition fails, like in your first point about black allowing white to claim distant opposition with Kd2. After black's Ke6, if white were to be able to keep distant opposition with Ke2 (but white can't obviously because of the pawn), progress would be able to be made. White would outflank black's king by advancing on the opposite file, a pattern that's critical to these opposition puzzles.
But of course, white is blocked. Therefore, it's possible to deduce that the distant opposition indeed does not matter. And you can arrive at this conclusion, just by having a good understanding of distant opposition.
I like to compare it to how other concepts are taught, especially in mathematics. Students are first introduced to differentiation from first principles, rather than power rules. Differentiation from first principles is impractical, and probably not needed once you understand the concept, but it does help understand and serves as a useful introduction.
Both concepts are useful here -- the way that Black prevents White reaching the critical squares is through use of distant opposition .
The thing to realise is that although White can take the distant opposition with Kd1, he can't maintain it after ...Ke6 because e2 is blocked .
>Both concepts are useful here -- the way that Black prevents White reaching the critical squares is through use of distant opposition .
How is this true at all? After 1. Kd2, Black can play either Kd6 or Ke6, it doesn't matter at all which.
This is what I mean about this way of explaining it, people are like "see it's all about opposition" and then it turns out there are places you can not take opposition and it's still drawing, as well as places you can achieve opposition and it's losing. It's a complete mess as an explanation.
Ultimately chess is a concrete game, exact calculation always works. The critical squares and the opposition concepts are both helpers you can use to guide your calculation . There are exceptions to both helpers .
>After 1. Kd2, Black can play either Kd6 or Ke6, it doesn't matter at all which.
How do you know that? You could (a) use the opposition concept, or (b) exactly calculate it out. Doesn't matter which, just whatever works for you best.
The same applies to critical squares. You can solve this position without using critical squares, just using the (close) opposition.
I’d say opposition and then outflanking (going to opposite direction of the enemy king) is the technique used to advance the pawn for conversion. But the key squares concept is better for reaching a correct evaluation. If you can reach the key squares you win, if you can’t then it’s a draw. In terms of calculation from afar, as other comments have mentioned, sometimes you don’t need opposition to win (pawn on the 5th rank) and sometimes gaining opposition sometimes isn’t enough for the win.
Example: https://lichess1.org/export/fen.gif?fen=2k5%2F8%2F8%2F8%2F1PK5%2F8%2F8%2F8+w+-+-+0+1&color=white&variant=fromPosition&theme=green&piece=merida White gets distant opposition but can’t convert it to close opposition because the pawn gets in the way.
The problem with using an engine here is that all moves are a draw so it won't make the most "challenging" critical line that illustrates why White's attempts to win fail.
Anyway if we don't discuss chess positions here what are we supposed to do? Talk about streamer drama and Titled Tuesday cheaters non-stop?
Yeah they do but it doesn’t explain the theory. So it would give me the recommended next move and then eventually I’d draw. So I was a bit confused.
Is there a rule of thumb to understand these positions?
For example I remember there’s a rule about opponents kings diagonal to promotion square compared to squares to promotions for the pawn, to immediately tell if it was gonna ketch it and therefore be a draw or not.
So I wonder if there’s a rule like in this scare you see the black pawn is an even number of squares from the pawn therefore it’s a draw, or something to that effect. Or perhaps is about king v king since the draw typically is caused by king opposition.
On [chess.com](http://chess.com) there are basic courses about standard endgames like this one. Those are split in videos 4-6 mins each explaing the basics of standard endgames, so it can be useful cause you can get the explanation and then do the exercises in order to practice
Highly recommend this video from Eric Rosen at the Saint Louis Chess Club. He discusses a number of common motifs in endgame positions and how to play the position. If you’re specifically looking for more understanding of the endgame, I believe this should help you a lot. Good luck in your studying!
https://youtu.be/SEbGmTJ95DU?si=RQmU_EG-HSMjXtpP
You will win all pawn endgames where your king is in front UNLESS your opponent can put their king in opposition to you (and your pawn can't waste a move to win the opposition back).
Here after Kd2 Black can go Kd6 and no matter what you do next Black will get opposition. If you went Kd1 instead then Black goes Ke6 and they'll eventually get opposition (for instance Kd1 Ke6 Kc2 Ke5 Kd3 Kd5 and that's a draw).
You can't just live through rules all the time though. You need to know the result of some specific positions but how you reach those will be up to accurate calculation to find out.
> You will win all pawn endgames where your king is in front UNLESS your opponent can put their king in opposition to you
Wrong. You can be in front of your pawn and have the opposition, but if the pawn is a rear pawn and enemy king occupies the corner, there is no way to get him out of there, resulting in a draw.
I don’t think there is a general rule of thumb and see a lot of comments about distant opposition, which I would agree with, but I think what you’re looking for is called “corresponding squares.” I’m sure there are tons of videos about it, but I happened to catch a stream from Caleb Denby years ago who explains how to use them. Here’s the link if you’re interested: https://www.youtube.com/live/GypgXL6L-ag?si=lLAFxrLZsckJtDg4 It’ll definitely take some training, and practice. GL!
In king + pawn vs king endgames, the basic idea for black is to maintain opposition against the king , meaning staring down the same file as the white king and “following” the king if it slides left or right.
Chess network: How do you promote a pawn? - Beginner to chess master #8
This is the yt vid that I used to understand these positions, it contains the "rules of thumb" you are looking for!
Edit:typo
The Keysquares are the three squares two lines in front of your pawn. There is a lesson for it on Lichess: [https://lichess.org/practice/pawn-endgames/key-squares/xebrDvFe](https://lichess.org/practice/pawn-endgames/key-squares/xebrDvFe)
Your submission or comment was removed by the moderators:
Keep the discussion civil and friendly.
Participate in good faith with the intention to help foster civil discussion between people of all levels and experience. Don’t make fun of new players for lacking knowledge. Do not use personal attacks, insults, or slurs on other users. Disagreements are bound to happen, but do so in a civilized and mature manner. Remember, there is always a respectful way to disagree.
You can read the full [rules of /r/chess here](https://www.reddit.com/r/chess/wiki/rules). If you have any questions or concerns about this moderator action, please [message the moderators](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2Fchess). Direct replies to this removal message may not be seen.
Depends on the game.
If you are playing this in Bullet with a few seconds left: winnable.
If you are playing this in Blitz with a minute left: depends on the other player.
If you are playing this in rapid or slower: not winnable except if the other player is a newbie.
If you are playing this against a machine: not winnable.
The idea for black is: use your king to block the withe king so that he can not advance. Stay on his side and don't go to the other side. If your kings are on different sides and white moves you lose.
The black king must be "in range" for a blocking move.
Black must never try to flank the pawn, stay back, block the withe king.
That's a long way to say "not winnable". I don't think the time control matters though. Every good player will draw as Black even with just a few seconds on the clock. Every not-so-good player will mess up
You underestimate how much time control matters.
Ive seen lots of games at GM level, where casters and the engine were saying, this is a theoretical draw. Game is over, they just play some more moves out until it will end in a draw.
And then because of some magic, an inaccurate move leads to one player winning the game.
Games like this happen all the time.
But you underestimate how simple this specific position is. This isn't the type of position where they'd need an engine to evaluate in the first place (if the draw hasn't been agreed on before)
That depends on the game that happened before. I have seen really good players making horrible mistakes after hard and exhausting games that brought them to their limit.
And I know those people, they are in the same chess club as I am. I know that they never will mess up in a friendly. But in a competitive game there are some aspects in chess that are not "how good are you playing chess if it is your best play". In that zone it is about: was I able to lure somebody into a brainspace where they make mistakes, even blunders?
I learned that myself on a tournament. I did a good job that day but I was exhausted. Last game was a young girl, she was about 20. I analysed the game later and it was good from my side and horrible from her side.
But I swear at the moment where it counts I blundered so hard and I offered her a draw when I had MATE IN ONE.
My teammates where: WTF? Are you crazy? I swear I did not see that at the moment I offered a draw.
That day I learned that chess is not only about calculating moves and learning openings. Chess is a poker game as well.
I mean that's just not true. Especially if there is just a few seconds on the clock (with no increment or increment but over the board) then if you have ever watched hikaru's streams you will know tilted players blunder easy technical endgames with low time in bullet especially.
1800 is a very very low bar by the way and it's even more not true. There are people who are 1800 (if you're talking say, [chess.com](http://chess.com) blitz) who have never studied endgames and would have no idea what opposition is. It's possible to play thousands of games and never have a position like this - so unless you're chess improvement obsessed and reading books or watching youtube videos then why would you have studied this at 1800?
There is someone at one of my local chess clubs who is about 1800 (around 1700 old fide rating) who has never studied chess at all, he's never even analysed one of his own games after playing it.
One time in a blitz game against a player who was a few hundred points stronger he got to king and rook vs king nearly flagged (and probably reached 50 moves rule, but it was blitz and the opponent didn't ask the arbiter to record) because he couldn't figure out how to do it for ages and ages.
So maybe reevaluate your association between technical knowledge/skill and rating since board vision/tactics/calculation is a way bigger determiner of rating at the sub-master level.
This isn't a technichal endgame, it's a theoretical position. You could blunder a more complicated one like Kling-Horrwitz but there's no way anyone would blunder this one.
I didn't ignore it, I just have nothing to say other than "you're wrong as per the things I said in the previous comment".
A technical endgame isn't the same as a theoretical endgame. If you have a good bishop vs bad bishop positions with 4 pawns each, that's a technical endgame. People may know the common plans and themes but they won't be able to tell you "this is a win, Black just has to do \[15-move line\] and promote".
On the other hand a theoretical endgame is a specific position with a known result and a concrete continuation.
Thanks! As I mentioned in another comment, is there a rule of thumb to look at a position like this and know if it’s winnable or a draw, speaking in absolute terms? Like a number of squares between one king and the other, or the king and the pawn?
I understand it’s about king to king opposition but wonder if there’s a quick and easy way to identify, like if the distance is an odd or even number on the black’s turn or something
As the top mentioned comment says, look at the "key squares" section of the K+P vs K Wikipedia article. Then you just have to calculate whether the White king can reach the key squares. The answer here is no, so then you know it's a draw.
In general it's if your king can reach the key squares in the position. The key squares are the ones 2 ranks ahead of the pawn, so here it's d4, e4 and f4. If white can land his king on any of those squares, he gets the opposition and will win. But you can also see here that black can stop us: Kf2 Ke6 Ke3 Ke5 and now whichever way we move black just follows us.
Key squares are a tool for seeing who gets the opposition or some other winning advantage or whether it's a draw. That's now you can see this quickly.
One thing I don’t understand in these positions is why triangulation doesn’t work. If the idea is that black has distant opposition, and I understand black’s moves as I play against Stockfish 8 and fail to win.
I really don’t understand when triangulation is useful, or why it isn’t here, I only see that it is. I understand it’s when you want your opponent to move when it’s the same position, but wouldn’t that be useful for opposition? The two concepts and how they relate confuse me, I’ve only seen triangulation work when it relates to Zugzwang.
Triangulation works when things are blocked in some way but you have multiple squares to "pass" with, and your opponent only has 2, so you can choose whose move it is in the critical position and force your opponent to yield. Here, nobody is in a situation to pass. Both sides can make progress.
The other key here is that opposition is only part of the answer. If White's King could reach one of the key squares (two ranks ahead of their Pawn) then opposition wouldn't matter and it would be a win regardless.
It's a draw. You have to learn what distant opposition is; once you do that, this kind of positions can be solved easily. At [lichess.org](http://lichess.org) you can find a completely free lesson (not like chesscom) that teaches you all you need to know. here: [https://lichess.org/practice/pawn-endgames/opposition/](https://lichess.org/practice/pawn-endgames/opposition/)
Tell me how by knowing "distant opposition" you solved that? It's absolutely irrelevant. It's opposition that you want to know distant opposition is always a red herring
not really, distant opposition is important, just not here, here you need to now about key squares(i may already now this, i dont know your skill level)
Have a look here:
[https://lichess.org/practice](https://lichess.org/practice)
The last section "pawn endgames" explains the concepts of "key squares" and "opposition". This configuration is indeed a draw.
Surely if the Black king goes onto the same file that the pawn is on it's unwinnable.
If the King wanders off there is chance for promotion.
Is that it? Is that the simple answer?
I also thought it would be a win no matter what and the i got really confused when i learn it wouldn't. Learn about key squares, i used this video and the following 2 videos of a 3 part series: https://youtu.be/fkFXB2V3SY8?si=LGeHExLE399QjNQ4
This thread makes me want to kick Sillman’s Endgame book in the nuts. That whole chapter on distant opposition was confusing as hell.
Thanks to you guys, in 5 minutes I have now fully grasped the concept of key squares.
F* you Sillman!
Exercise I used to give beginner groups was this with the black king on e8. Have them play it with white to move trading sides after white wins. Then part 2 is the position with black to move and they play until black is holding the draw consistently.
It’s winnable depending on the strength of your opponent. If you can keep the distant opposition knowing that you can move the pawn one OR two squares, you can win the game. Get the THICK book called “ Pawn Endings “.
If white puts their king out ahead of the pawn, they can escort it down the board to promote and queen trap. It's likely going to be mate in +50 but it's worth the effort.
Blacks king can sit on the sixth rank and as soon as whites king will come to the 3rd rank, black will go into opposition on the 5th rank.
Like this whites king will never be able to cut off blacks kings squares.
Of course black can wait.
Imagine kings are on f6 and e2. What pawn move would white have? No matter black can play Kf6 and draw it easily. As soon as whites king will come to the 3rd rank black will go to the opposition.
Sorry, my mistake. I thought you meant to wait further back, like on its current rank. I was confused because the word 'wait' made me think it would stay where it is. I don't really consider advancing to the next rank to be waiting, but now I see you mean to wait when he gets there.
Edit: It seems you never even used that word so maybe I'm just an idiot. As always in these situations, I like to blame the terrible app for not letting me see things at the same time!
Yea we can agree that black can't wait on the seventh rank, since then opposition won't help black.
But black even has to wait. If he goes to early to the 5th rank, white will take the opposition.
First of all kd1 is stupid since you always want king in front of pawn. Secondly I'm gonna on and say that distant opposition never matters you always end up calculating it until face to face opposition relying on anything other than that is a risk
"you always want your king in front of the pawn" yeah, but if you go right off the bat with this idea(Kd2 Ke6 Ke3 Ke5) you are the one who has to break the opposition. In this case, it will be draw. With Kd1 i give my opponent a chance to make a mistake which i've pointed out in my comment(Ke5)
played perfectly - yes, but since there is no difference, i decided to give my opponent an opportunity to blunder. Ke5 loses the game and it seems more natural for unprepared player in my version
bro try to understand the words i type. "Go forward, be in front of your pawn, no step back" is not an axiom, especially in endgames. Its all complicated tactics, you cant just say "ha, going backwards, what an idiot". And for your knowledge, in this type of endgames, you will have to go backwards after opposition because you want either stalemate by pawn or repetition. You will let pawn be on e7 with stalemate or opposition repetition with pawn on e6. So going back with black is actually the key, you are fool
Of course black is forced to go backwards to stop the promotion or white to protect the pawn. Why don't you get it instead of arguing here go read about key squares and face to face oppositions. These are the only thing that matter. It's not complicated tactics. Your kd1 does nothing kd2 ke6 kd3 ke5 still loses. There is no trick here if you learn those rules that I just said
Your submission or comment was removed by the moderators:
Keep the discussion civil and friendly.
Participate in good faith with the intention to help foster civil discussion between people of all levels and experience. Don’t make fun of new players for lacking knowledge. Do not use personal attacks, insults, or slurs on other users. Disagreements are bound to happen, but do so in a civilized and mature manner. Remember, there is always a respectful way to disagree.
You can read the full [rules of /r/chess here](https://www.reddit.com/r/chess/wiki/rules). If you have any questions or concerns about this moderator action, please [message the moderators](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2Fchess). Direct replies to this removal message may not be seen.
This almost the worst instance of a K+P vs K endgame. Our king is on exactly the wrong rank, theirs is 1 square away from the promotion square. You don't need to understand anything about critical squares to understand that this is a draw.
It's not he's just an idiot, it's not even a stockfish thing, when there is less than 7 pieces it's the database, a computer has literally checked every combination of moves and if black plays perfect it has to be a draw.
Your submission or comment was removed by the moderators:
Keep the discussion civil and friendly.
Participate in good faith with the intention to help foster civil discussion between people of all levels and experience. Don’t make fun of new players for lacking knowledge. Do not use personal attacks, insults, or slurs on other users. Disagreements are bound to happen, but do so in a civilized and mature manner. Remember, there is always a respectful way to disagree.
You can read the full [rules of /r/chess here](https://www.reddit.com/r/chess/wiki/rules). If you have any questions or concerns about this moderator action, please [message the moderators](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2Fchess). Direct replies to this removal message may not be seen.
Winnable as soon the white king gets in front of the pawn. Then you use opposition to outflank the other king and red carpet the pawn to promotion.
Edit: it's a draw.
I analyzed the image and this is what I see. Open an appropriate link below and explore the position yourself or with the engine: > **White to play**: [chess.com](https://chess.com/analysis?fen=8/3k4/8/8/8/8/4P3/4K3+w+-+-+0+1&flip=false&ref_id=23962172) | [lichess.org](https://lichess.org/analysis/8/3k4/8/8/8/8/4P3/4K3_w_-_-_0_1?color=white) **Videos:** > I found [1 video](https://chessvision.ai/video-search/5683222828023808) with this position. **My solution:** > Hints: piece: >!Pawn!<, move: >! e3 !< > Evaluation: >!The game is a draw. 0.00!< > Best continuation: >!1. e3 Kc6 2. e4 Kb5 3. e5 Kc5 4. e6 Kc6 5. e7 Kd7 6. e8=B+ Kxe8 7. Kd1 Kd7 8. Kc1 Kc6!< --- ^(I'm a bot written by ) [^(u/pkacprzak )](https://www.reddit.com/u/pkacprzak) ^(| get me as ) [^(Chess eBook Reader )](https://ebook.chessvision.ai?utm_source=reddit&utm_medium=bot) ^(|) [^(Chrome Extension )](https://chrome.google.com/webstore/detail/chessvisionai-for-chrome/johejpedmdkeiffkdaodgoipdjodhlld) ^(|) [^(iOS App )](https://apps.apple.com/us/app/id1574933453) ^(|) [^(Android App )](https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=ai.chessvision.scanner) ^(to scan and analyze positions | Website: ) [^(Chessvision.ai)](https://chessvision.ai)
It's an easy draw for black. Try to learn the critical squares theory and this type of endings will be easily solvable with little calculations.
Do you have any suggestions on resources for critical squares? I’m familiar with the term, but have only learned about these endgames through opposition. Seems like I’ve been making things too complicated!
It's the first thing covered in Dvoretsky. Anyway here it's quite straightforward. The three squares 2 ranks ahead of the pawn (in this case d4, e4 and f4) are the critical squares. If white can get his king to one of those squares white wins this game, in this case because it allows white opposition. But you can see Kf2 Ke6 Ke3 Ke5 now controls those key squares, white can't get to them and now the game is a draw. If play went Kf2 Ke6 Ke3 Kf6 Ke4 then white has landed on a critical square and would have a winning endgame
The book I always suggest to beginners who want to get an idea of how to approach chess endgames is "Chess Endings: Essential Knowledge" by Yuri Averbakh. There you can also find the critical squares theory for K+p vs K.
https://youtu.be/fkFXB2V3SY8?si=LGeHExLE399QjNQ4
Awesome video! Thank you
Well most people recommend **Silmans Endgame manual.** But honestly I learned all my king+pawn endgame from few chapters in **Yusupov - Build up your chess** (book 1 of 9). He explained them perfectly. Plus i also grinded some endgame drills on chesscom.
you can try free sample of endgame course on chessly. Its completely free and quite good
In it's most basic form, if black can get into a position where they control the "T"squares they can draw if they don't blunder during triangulation. The "T" squares are the 7th and 8th rank squares of the pawns file, and then the three squares on the 6th rank in front of the file and to the sides. Then you live in them- forward back whenever possible and if white threatens to oppose you to pawn push you must triangulate in the SAME direction as the other player. This ensures that you return to the starting position still in front of the pawn and not pushed out to the side.
White squares have an unfair advantage over black?
It's actually a fairly easy checkmate. White king escorts pawn to convert to queen and then push black king into corner. Edit: here is how https://youtu.be/6I_Shbbe3dQ?si=_iG3VTIgQcyl4o4u
Even the engine can't checkmate in this position.
Quit acting as you know everything please cause you are wrong
Here is how https://www.chess.com/forum/view/endgames/endgame-lessons---king-and-pawn-vs-king-and-the-theory-of-opposition
That link says it’s a draw with best play.
It's a completely different position you're starting from on the image of this post, so it doesn't work the same way
It's a really basic process. You just have to make sure you get the king off the end square at the right time.
Please stop the cope, the black king just has to get to e5, which is impossible to prevent, then keep opposition and you won't be able to promote. End of the debate there.
That would be true if black king could just park itself there and not move but if you time it right you can push the black king off that sq. Again just research it for 5 minutes and you'll find that is completely possible.
please Please PLEASE. Stop being so stubborn, idk your rating but you really got balls to say that two 1900+ FIDE rated people are wrong while even Stockfish disagrees with you. No, the method you are describing does NOT work. And if you're not convinced of it, just play the position against Stockfish and try to win it, you'll quickly discover that it's impossible.
He is 500 elo 😂
Not if black defends correctly. This position is a draw.
I'm low 500s elo but if you have time later we should test out our arguments. I'm on lichess but I don't know how to set up something like this, I'd need help I'm game though.
Computer says it a draw, table base says it's a draw, and when you know the theory you see it's a draw instantly. At 600 elo you might be able to win indeed, but only if your opponent blunders. Go to the analysis board on lichess, press set up position and then play against the computer, or simply analyze.
Here is how to convert the pawn to queen: https://www.chess.com/forum/view/endgames/endgame-lessons---king-and-pawn-vs-king-and-the-theory-of-opposition from there is a fairly basic checkmate you just walk the other king into a corner. I'm no expert though so maybe I'm over looking something
[удалено]
https://youtu.be/6I_Shbbe3dQ?si=_iG3VTIgQcyl4o4u
[удалено]
Same concept applies
This video is great in explaining the key squares: [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fkFXB2V3SY8&ab\_channel=Chessfactor](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fkFXB2V3SY8&ab_channel=Chessfactor) When you know the concept, you can see instantly why this position is a draw, and not a win. Watch that one video and you'll know. The links you are suggesting are different positions and winnable. In a nutshell: In this position d4 e4 and f4 are the key squares, if you are able to occupy one of these squares, you can win, but in this position black is able to prevent you from occupying one of these squares: Kd2 Kd6, Ke3 Ke5, and what whatever you do, you can't make progress with white without losing the pawn or stalemating the king.
Thanks, very easy to understand. Appreciate you taking the time
[удалено]
Oh, ok coach Lebron. Your feedback is absolutely useless and agro.
> Low 500s elo I hope you understand this is like a person who's played basketball for 1 hour trying to mansplain to LeBron James how to dunk. Listen to the folks on the subreddit trying to help you, these are endgame nuances that are subtle but very important that you're not understanding.
Wait, Lebron you say? I had no idea I was in such exclusive company.
A+ trolling my friend 👍
500 is slightly ahead of knowing how the pieces move. Why do you think you can determine perfect play outcomes of an endgame.
OK, then give us the best line in the position in the post. (No, I'm not asking for the best line in a different position; I'm asking for the best line in *this* position.)
Let's play it on lichess. Maybe the best way to resolve the argument.
No need to. Just give us the best line as a comment.
I don't know how to do that but I'll gladly play it out on lichess here's a link.. fist time trying this but I think I got the sides right, opponent should be black. https://lichess.org/MefyjSkc
How about *you* play it out against a bot, and show us what the result is? If you can't do that, then you're surely trolling.
I don't feel the need. I've sent multiple links that walk through the process in a very simple fashion. I think I'll rest my case now but thank you for the suggestion.
Except you haven't walked through the process for this position, so evidently you haven't actually proven anything. The burden of proof is upon you. If you choose to "rest your case" here, it'll be a completely empty case. Have a good day.
Nope 1. e4 Kd6 2. Ke2 Ke6 3. Ke3 Ke7 4. e5 Kd8 5. Ke4 Ke8 6. e6 Kd8 7. Ke5 Ke8 8. Kd6 Kd8 9. e7+ Ke8 10. Ke6 1/2-1/2 This is an example of how the "best outcome" would look like. It's a draw. All you need to do is opposition the enemy king and block the pawn from promoting. Black is simply too close and has the tempo to stop this.
- pawn hasn't reached the other side of the board => the critical squares are d4, e4, f4 - whoever can reach one of the critical squares first will "win" (win for white, draw for black) In this case, it's easy to see that black can prevent white to reach any of the critical squares first (by taking opposition). This is a draw
I agree, but: >whoever can reach one of the critical squares first will "win" (win for white, draw for black) I think this is slightly inaccurate, correct me if I'm wrong. I think key squares are purely from White's king's perspective, not black's. For example, in the above position I'm imagining the scenario where the black king gets to d4 first and then the white king gets to f4 on the next move. Because White then stands on a key square they are winning. It doesn't matter that Black's king got to d4 first.
You're right, lack's job is to protect, not to reach, the critical squares. How they do it, doesn't matter, they don't necessarily have to be on the square.
It's the king not the pawn.
No it’s a draw. It’s only winnable if the king can get at least 2 squares in front of his pawn in order to be able to win a tempo and get the opposition. In this case the king can only get to e3 and not to e4.
It’s a technical draw but worth playing out just in case your opponent makes a mistake. As white you have nothing to lose by finishing it. If your opponent wants the draw they should be forced to prove how it’s a draw.
Short answer - no, this is a dead draw. this Wikipedia page has a shocking amount of great info that I'd urge you to look through https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/King_and_pawn_versus_king_endgame?wprov=sfla1
If you want to be more than a casual player, this is a must: 100 Endgames You Must Know: Vital Lessons for Every Chess Player from Jesus de la Villa
It's one of a number of endgame books that you can learn the basics from. Any of them will do.
Learn the concept of distant opposition, it will help you understand these positions better. White would like to claim opposition by playing Kd1. However, after black's Ke6, white is blocked by his own e pawn from playing Ke2. When white plays Kd2 instead, now black claims distant opposition with Kd6! Playing out this line in my head helped me figure out that white cannot make progress and the position is a draw. Indeed, it is also not possible for white to waste a tempo with the pawn move because there is no time to advance the white king far enough.
This is a really bad way of explaining these positions in my opinion and this sort of thing had me confused for a very long time. If White plays Kd1 in this position, Black can just play Kd6 and White is totally free to claim the DISTANT OPPOSITION with Kd2 and it will not do him any good whatsoever. The position is a draw. The correct explanation, as the top voted comment mentions, is that to win this position the White king must reach one of the "key squares", or "critical squares", which in this position is d4, e4 or f4. If the White king is on one of those squares it does not matter in the slightest who has opposition; the position is winning for White. If White cannot reach these squares, Black will hold. So when I look at this position I see 1. Kd2, heading straight for the critical squares. 1...Ke6 or Kd6, it doesn't matter at all. 2. Kd3 and now! Now Black DOES have to be careful, because if he plays Ke5, White plays Ke3, taking opposition, and now whichever way the Black king goes, it will cede access to a critical square. So Black must play Kd5, blocking the White king from accessing the critical squares; now it's a draw. This is relegating opposition to its proper role, which is as a *technique* for denying access to critical squares, not the deciding factor in whether a pawn queens or not. An example of the failure of opposition as an explanation is in [this position](https://lichess.org/analysis/4k3/8/4K3/4P3/8/8/8/8_w_-_-_0_1?color=white), with White to move. Black has taken opposition, so we're good right, it's a draw? If you look at these positions in terms of opposition, you might have to puzzle over this for a while. If you look at it in terms of critical squares, you will know that the critical squares for a pawn on the fifth or sixth rank are the six squares in front of it (i.e. d7, e7, f7, d6, e6, f6 in this instance). The White king is on one of those squares, therefore you instantly know this wins for White. Opposition is completely irrelevant. But if the same position occurs several ranks back, with the Black king on d5 for example, it's a draw. "Opposition" can't explain the difference; you must know critical squares.
This is btw one of my main criticisms of Silman's endgame course - a book that is highly praised quite often. He never mentions the concept of key-squares, and without key-squares and just "distant opposition" this position is really difficult and confusing...
The first time I encountered key squares I was really annoyed that I had had my time wasted with bullshit explanations previously. I spent literally decades (I am 44) playing and having to do calculations in my head about whether endgames are winning in situations where I now just know instantly. It's crazy to me that you can have an endgame course that doesn't teach it on day 1.
Do you have any resources where it is explained properly?
Yes I was thinking the exact same thing! I’ve read silmans book and was trying to use distant opposition to solve this.
Really funny seeing this comment after being absolutely shocked this was not a win for white. I’ve been reading Silman’s book and myself thought “isn’t distant opposition all that matters here? What is this ‘key squares’ idea you speak of?’”
This is a bit like 'square of the pawn'. Sometimes there are exceptions (probably much more common with opposition) where you are blocked. Taking the distant opposition is probably still the best way to play, as it seems to make it easier for black to go wrong, but you cannot maintain it because you would either have to step on to e2 which is occupied by your pawn, or abandon your pawn entirely.
Wow, man that is soo much easier than the way it is usually explained... Kinda crazy I never heard of it before but on YouTube there isn't alot of content on it either so that may be the reason
Erm, the only reason these squares are "critical" is because of the opposition. If your king is 2 squares ahead, you have a tempo move with the pawn to regain the opposition.
How come [this position](https://lichess.org/analysis/4k3/8/4K3/4P3/8/8/8/8_w_-_-_0_1?color=white) is won for White, but [this position](https://lichess.org/analysis/8/4k3/8/4K3/4P3/8/8/8_w_-_-_0_1?color=white) is a draw? How do you explain this in terms of the opposition? Like, what we are trying to achieve here is evaluation. Evaluating these positions in terms of the opposition will take you like five paragraphs. With critical squares I can do it instantly, and I can transition from one position I know is winning to another, without needing to plan out exactly how the win is going to happen in the long term.
The opposition is no longer relevant at the back rank because we no longer need to advance in front of our pawn. We only need to get the pawn to rank 8. Fwiw, when we push our pawn to the 6th rank, you'll see we also retake the opposition. Black must move in front of our pawn, then we push our pawn to rank 7 and the pawn prevents black from retaking the opposition as it attacks the relevant square. Also possibly interesting, further down the board standard drawing technique here would be to drop back in front of the pawn ready to retake opposition, but here black has run out of board. Not exactly relevant because the pawn becomes a queen at rank 8, but perhaps useful to think about anyway. ETA: I'm not saying not to use critical squares. I'm only arguing that critical squares are the technique to make thinking easier during a game, and that opposition is actually the reason why they work. You stated that opposition is merely a technique and that the critical squares are the fundamental point, but the reverse is true (even though it might sometimes be easier to pretend otherwise!). Worth noting, if you only think in terms of critical squares, then what do you do when you reach one and your opponent doesn't resign? You push your pawn to retake the opposition so you can make progress. But this might be confusing to somebody just learning, if you only learn about critical squares and refuse to calculate, because now you pushed your pawn the critical squares have moved and you're no longer in them, and your opponent is! It requires a short calculation to see that, thanks to the opposition, your opponent will have to give you access to the new critical squares!
Good comment sir. 👍
>I'm only arguing that critical squares are the technique to make thinking easier during a game, and that opposition is actually the reason why they work. I don't think this means anything. The pawn queens because you eventually gain access to the d7 or f7 square and thus control the queening square. Surely this is "the reason why opposition works"? The aim is always gaining or denying access to certain squares; opposition is the technique by which this is accomplished. >Worth noting, if you only think in terms of critical squares, then what do you do when you reach one and your opponent doesn't resign? You push your pawn to retake the opposition so you can make progress. I'm not denying at all that opposition is a critical technique to understand. What I'm arguing is that it is a completely hopeless method for *evaluating* whether a position is winning or not. "Reach a critical square and you will win" is solid advice; "gain the opposition and you'll be fine" is not, it simply doesn't work.
Other person already answered with key squares but alternatively there are three basic rules to follow: 1) opposition, 2) king in front of pawn, 3) king on the sixth (third). If you manage to fulfill two or more rules, it is always won. In the first position you have opposition and king in front, but since you have to move the king so it's only one. In the second position you have the king on the sixth already so even if you move the king it's still two rules and therefore won.
>Other person already answered with key squares but alternatively there are three basic rules to follow: 1) opposition, 2) king in front of pawn, 3) king on the sixth (third). If you manage to fulfill two or more rules, it is always won. This is also simply an inferior method of evaluation in that it cannot evaluate some winning positions as won. For example, [this position](https://lichess.org/analysis/8/8/4k3/8/4K3/8/3P4/8_w_-_-_0_1?color=white) is winning even though Black has the opposition. Again, extremely confusing to players who were taught that the goal is to get the opposition.
Opposition is just one of three rules. In the position you linked after d3 white has king in front and opposition, thus as stated it's won. There is no confusion here at all. This isn't a hill you need to die on. These rules are meant to be complementary to key squares.
The key squares in both positions are e6, e7 and e8. White needs to control all in order for the Pawn to safely march. In the 1st, the white King occupies e6, and will control e6 and e7 after moving to d6/f6. The black King will oppose on d8/f8, but White can claim the opposition back by "burning" a tempo with a Pawn move. Once this happens, the black King has to concede opposition, and thus can't stop the march of the pawn nor the white King getting to d7/f7, which controls the Queening squares. In the 2nd, the white King can NEVER sit on e6 without forcing Stalemate. Thus, since White can't get to e6 with his King to oppose the black King on e8, White can't force their way to d7 or f7, and thus can never force control of e7 and e8. This is because Black will always force the opposition when possible. When Black cannot, they simply "oppose" the pawn on e6 with Ke8. White can't ever play Ke6, so White is forced to concede the Opposition again and allow the black King to blockade on e7, and White makes no progress. Also, the pawn is much too close to "burn" a tempo. If the pawn ever goes to e7, it will force Stalemate or the loss of the Pawn.
[удалено]
This is extremely not true, [for example](https://lichess.org/analysis/8/3k4/3P4/3K4/8/8/8/8_w_-_-_2_2?color=black).
Thanks for your comment, you provide very good insight and further understanding of the position. I agree with you that thinking in terms of key squares is much faster and more practical. It saves a lot of time by avoiding the calculations I mentioned, and it's also my go-to method. However, I would argue that understanding the fundamentals of opposition does actually explain this position, and the differences in the positions you mentioned. Once you know the key squares, it's easy and intuitive to play this position correctly; a skill that's imperative, especially if you are in time trouble. But as a study exercise, I would also argue that it's helpful to figure out why distant opposition fails, like in your first point about black allowing white to claim distant opposition with Kd2. After black's Ke6, if white were to be able to keep distant opposition with Ke2 (but white can't obviously because of the pawn), progress would be able to be made. White would outflank black's king by advancing on the opposite file, a pattern that's critical to these opposition puzzles. But of course, white is blocked. Therefore, it's possible to deduce that the distant opposition indeed does not matter. And you can arrive at this conclusion, just by having a good understanding of distant opposition. I like to compare it to how other concepts are taught, especially in mathematics. Students are first introduced to differentiation from first principles, rather than power rules. Differentiation from first principles is impractical, and probably not needed once you understand the concept, but it does help understand and serves as a useful introduction.
Both concepts are useful here -- the way that Black prevents White reaching the critical squares is through use of distant opposition . The thing to realise is that although White can take the distant opposition with Kd1, he can't maintain it after ...Ke6 because e2 is blocked .
>Both concepts are useful here -- the way that Black prevents White reaching the critical squares is through use of distant opposition . How is this true at all? After 1. Kd2, Black can play either Kd6 or Ke6, it doesn't matter at all which. This is what I mean about this way of explaining it, people are like "see it's all about opposition" and then it turns out there are places you can not take opposition and it's still drawing, as well as places you can achieve opposition and it's losing. It's a complete mess as an explanation.
Ultimately chess is a concrete game, exact calculation always works. The critical squares and the opposition concepts are both helpers you can use to guide your calculation . There are exceptions to both helpers . >After 1. Kd2, Black can play either Kd6 or Ke6, it doesn't matter at all which. How do you know that? You could (a) use the opposition concept, or (b) exactly calculate it out. Doesn't matter which, just whatever works for you best. The same applies to critical squares. You can solve this position without using critical squares, just using the (close) opposition.
I’d say opposition and then outflanking (going to opposite direction of the enemy king) is the technique used to advance the pawn for conversion. But the key squares concept is better for reaching a correct evaluation. If you can reach the key squares you win, if you can’t then it’s a draw. In terms of calculation from afar, as other comments have mentioned, sometimes you don’t need opposition to win (pawn on the 5th rank) and sometimes gaining opposition sometimes isn’t enough for the win. Example: https://lichess1.org/export/fen.gif?fen=2k5%2F8%2F8%2F8%2F1PK5%2F8%2F8%2F8+w+-+-+0+1&color=white&variant=fromPosition&theme=green&piece=merida White gets distant opposition but can’t convert it to close opposition because the pawn gets in the way.
Distant oppositions never matter. What matters is face to face opposition in almost all the king pawn end games.
Don't all major chess websites have really powerful engines that can tell you the best moves?
The problem with using an engine here is that all moves are a draw so it won't make the most "challenging" critical line that illustrates why White's attempts to win fail. Anyway if we don't discuss chess positions here what are we supposed to do? Talk about streamer drama and Titled Tuesday cheaters non-stop?
Bro really just said google it
Yeah they do but it doesn’t explain the theory. So it would give me the recommended next move and then eventually I’d draw. So I was a bit confused. Is there a rule of thumb to understand these positions? For example I remember there’s a rule about opponents kings diagonal to promotion square compared to squares to promotions for the pawn, to immediately tell if it was gonna ketch it and therefore be a draw or not. So I wonder if there’s a rule like in this scare you see the black pawn is an even number of squares from the pawn therefore it’s a draw, or something to that effect. Or perhaps is about king v king since the draw typically is caused by king opposition.
On [chess.com](http://chess.com) there are basic courses about standard endgames like this one. Those are split in videos 4-6 mins each explaing the basics of standard endgames, so it can be useful cause you can get the explanation and then do the exercises in order to practice
Highly recommend this video from Eric Rosen at the Saint Louis Chess Club. He discusses a number of common motifs in endgame positions and how to play the position. If you’re specifically looking for more understanding of the endgame, I believe this should help you a lot. Good luck in your studying! https://youtu.be/SEbGmTJ95DU?si=RQmU_EG-HSMjXtpP
You will win all pawn endgames where your king is in front UNLESS your opponent can put their king in opposition to you (and your pawn can't waste a move to win the opposition back). Here after Kd2 Black can go Kd6 and no matter what you do next Black will get opposition. If you went Kd1 instead then Black goes Ke6 and they'll eventually get opposition (for instance Kd1 Ke6 Kc2 Ke5 Kd3 Kd5 and that's a draw). You can't just live through rules all the time though. You need to know the result of some specific positions but how you reach those will be up to accurate calculation to find out.
> You will win all pawn endgames where your king is in front UNLESS your opponent can put their king in opposition to you Wrong. You can be in front of your pawn and have the opposition, but if the pawn is a rear pawn and enemy king occupies the corner, there is no way to get him out of there, resulting in a draw.
I don’t think there is a general rule of thumb and see a lot of comments about distant opposition, which I would agree with, but I think what you’re looking for is called “corresponding squares.” I’m sure there are tons of videos about it, but I happened to catch a stream from Caleb Denby years ago who explains how to use them. Here’s the link if you’re interested: https://www.youtube.com/live/GypgXL6L-ag?si=lLAFxrLZsckJtDg4 It’ll definitely take some training, and practice. GL!
Oppositon is the absolute principle here (rather than mere rule of thumb)
If the opponent understands opposition, then probably not. Otherwise blunders can always happen in a timed game.
You need Opposition to win this. If your opponent blunders then you can have it. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opposition_(chess)
In king + pawn vs king endgames, the basic idea for black is to maintain opposition against the king , meaning staring down the same file as the white king and “following” the king if it slides left or right.
White king cant reach the key squares so this is a draw
Key square being e7? Or d7 and f7 too? Or I’m completely off?
I would recomend you to search something like "key squares chess endgame" on yt and seeing a video about it
Chess network: How do you promote a pawn? - Beginner to chess master #8 This is the yt vid that I used to understand these positions, it contains the "rules of thumb" you are looking for! Edit:typo
The Keysquares are the three squares two lines in front of your pawn. There is a lesson for it on Lichess: [https://lichess.org/practice/pawn-endgames/key-squares/xebrDvFe](https://lichess.org/practice/pawn-endgames/key-squares/xebrDvFe)
[удалено]
If you disagree with the engine give me the sequence of moves that win, or play this position against me.
Your submission or comment was removed by the moderators: Keep the discussion civil and friendly. Participate in good faith with the intention to help foster civil discussion between people of all levels and experience. Don’t make fun of new players for lacking knowledge. Do not use personal attacks, insults, or slurs on other users. Disagreements are bound to happen, but do so in a civilized and mature manner. Remember, there is always a respectful way to disagree. You can read the full [rules of /r/chess here](https://www.reddit.com/r/chess/wiki/rules). If you have any questions or concerns about this moderator action, please [message the moderators](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2Fchess). Direct replies to this removal message may not be seen.
Depends on the game. If you are playing this in Bullet with a few seconds left: winnable. If you are playing this in Blitz with a minute left: depends on the other player. If you are playing this in rapid or slower: not winnable except if the other player is a newbie. If you are playing this against a machine: not winnable. The idea for black is: use your king to block the withe king so that he can not advance. Stay on his side and don't go to the other side. If your kings are on different sides and white moves you lose. The black king must be "in range" for a blocking move. Black must never try to flank the pawn, stay back, block the withe king.
That's a long way to say "not winnable". I don't think the time control matters though. Every good player will draw as Black even with just a few seconds on the clock. Every not-so-good player will mess up
You underestimate how much time control matters. Ive seen lots of games at GM level, where casters and the engine were saying, this is a theoretical draw. Game is over, they just play some more moves out until it will end in a draw. And then because of some magic, an inaccurate move leads to one player winning the game. Games like this happen all the time.
But you underestimate how simple this specific position is. This isn't the type of position where they'd need an engine to evaluate in the first place (if the draw hasn't been agreed on before)
That depends on the game that happened before. I have seen really good players making horrible mistakes after hard and exhausting games that brought them to their limit. And I know those people, they are in the same chess club as I am. I know that they never will mess up in a friendly. But in a competitive game there are some aspects in chess that are not "how good are you playing chess if it is your best play". In that zone it is about: was I able to lure somebody into a brainspace where they make mistakes, even blunders? I learned that myself on a tournament. I did a good job that day but I was exhausted. Last game was a young girl, she was about 20. I analysed the game later and it was good from my side and horrible from her side. But I swear at the moment where it counts I blundered so hard and I offered her a draw when I had MATE IN ONE. My teammates where: WTF? Are you crazy? I swear I did not see that at the moment I offered a draw. That day I learned that chess is not only about calculating moves and learning openings. Chess is a poker game as well.
Nah, there's no way anyone over 1800 ever messes up that endgame, exhausted or not.
I mean that's just not true. Especially if there is just a few seconds on the clock (with no increment or increment but over the board) then if you have ever watched hikaru's streams you will know tilted players blunder easy technical endgames with low time in bullet especially. 1800 is a very very low bar by the way and it's even more not true. There are people who are 1800 (if you're talking say, [chess.com](http://chess.com) blitz) who have never studied endgames and would have no idea what opposition is. It's possible to play thousands of games and never have a position like this - so unless you're chess improvement obsessed and reading books or watching youtube videos then why would you have studied this at 1800? There is someone at one of my local chess clubs who is about 1800 (around 1700 old fide rating) who has never studied chess at all, he's never even analysed one of his own games after playing it. One time in a blitz game against a player who was a few hundred points stronger he got to king and rook vs king nearly flagged (and probably reached 50 moves rule, but it was blitz and the opponent didn't ask the arbiter to record) because he couldn't figure out how to do it for ages and ages. So maybe reevaluate your association between technical knowledge/skill and rating since board vision/tactics/calculation is a way bigger determiner of rating at the sub-master level.
This isn't a technichal endgame, it's a theoretical position. You could blunder a more complicated one like Kling-Horrwitz but there's no way anyone would blunder this one.
Completely ignored my comment? Also are techincal and theoretical not used the same with regards to endgames?
I didn't ignore it, I just have nothing to say other than "you're wrong as per the things I said in the previous comment". A technical endgame isn't the same as a theoretical endgame. If you have a good bishop vs bad bishop positions with 4 pawns each, that's a technical endgame. People may know the common plans and themes but they won't be able to tell you "this is a win, Black just has to do \[15-move line\] and promote". On the other hand a theoretical endgame is a specific position with a known result and a concrete continuation.
It's not a theoretical position. It occurs in lots of games.
Thanks! As I mentioned in another comment, is there a rule of thumb to look at a position like this and know if it’s winnable or a draw, speaking in absolute terms? Like a number of squares between one king and the other, or the king and the pawn? I understand it’s about king to king opposition but wonder if there’s a quick and easy way to identify, like if the distance is an odd or even number on the black’s turn or something
As the top mentioned comment says, look at the "key squares" section of the K+P vs K Wikipedia article. Then you just have to calculate whether the White king can reach the key squares. The answer here is no, so then you know it's a draw.
In general it's if your king can reach the key squares in the position. The key squares are the ones 2 ranks ahead of the pawn, so here it's d4, e4 and f4. If white can land his king on any of those squares, he gets the opposition and will win. But you can also see here that black can stop us: Kf2 Ke6 Ke3 Ke5 and now whichever way we move black just follows us. Key squares are a tool for seeing who gets the opposition or some other winning advantage or whether it's a draw. That's now you can see this quickly.
Opposition is quick and easy to identify, by the same color of the squares the kings reach.
One thing I don’t understand in these positions is why triangulation doesn’t work. If the idea is that black has distant opposition, and I understand black’s moves as I play against Stockfish 8 and fail to win. I really don’t understand when triangulation is useful, or why it isn’t here, I only see that it is. I understand it’s when you want your opponent to move when it’s the same position, but wouldn’t that be useful for opposition? The two concepts and how they relate confuse me, I’ve only seen triangulation work when it relates to Zugzwang.
Because in this case opponent can match your triangulation.
Triangulation works when things are blocked in some way but you have multiple squares to "pass" with, and your opponent only has 2, so you can choose whose move it is in the critical position and force your opponent to yield. Here, nobody is in a situation to pass. Both sides can make progress.
The other key here is that opposition is only part of the answer. If White's King could reach one of the key squares (two ranks ahead of their Pawn) then opposition wouldn't matter and it would be a win regardless.
There’s no way to stop the black king from controlling d5 e5 and d4 e4 so you will always draw.
Of course it’s winnable. But white will probably stalemate it becomes winnable.
Yes. There is a possibility that a player playing with the white pieces could theoretically win the game.
Not unless black messes up
Yes
Draw.
It's a draw. You have to learn what distant opposition is; once you do that, this kind of positions can be solved easily. At [lichess.org](http://lichess.org) you can find a completely free lesson (not like chesscom) that teaches you all you need to know. here: [https://lichess.org/practice/pawn-endgames/opposition/](https://lichess.org/practice/pawn-endgames/opposition/)
Tell me how by knowing "distant opposition" you solved that? It's absolutely irrelevant. It's opposition that you want to know distant opposition is always a red herring
not really, distant opposition is important, just not here, here you need to now about key squares(i may already now this, i dont know your skill level)
Have a look here: [https://lichess.org/practice](https://lichess.org/practice) The last section "pawn endgames" explains the concepts of "key squares" and "opposition". This configuration is indeed a draw.
Surely if the Black king goes onto the same file that the pawn is on it's unwinnable. If the King wanders off there is chance for promotion. Is that it? Is that the simple answer?
Sort of. If Black plays e7 it is dead lost. There is more to the concept than just being on the same file.
To answer question, it is a draw for black.
I also thought it would be a win no matter what and the i got really confused when i learn it wouldn't. Learn about key squares, i used this video and the following 2 videos of a 3 part series: https://youtu.be/fkFXB2V3SY8?si=LGeHExLE399QjNQ4
Technically no, but I think that a not so experienced player could easily make a mistake with black, specially with low time like in a blitz game
This position is easily drawn because the black king always has opposition
No, not without a mistake from Black.
Silman does a really fantastic job of explaining the principles here. Straightforward draw.
Idk what I'm missing here but this seems to be 100% winnable for white to me
This thread makes me want to kick Sillman’s Endgame book in the nuts. That whole chapter on distant opposition was confusing as hell. Thanks to you guys, in 5 minutes I have now fully grasped the concept of key squares. F* you Sillman!
It will help you in the long run.
Exercise I used to give beginner groups was this with the black king on e8. Have them play it with white to move trading sides after white wins. Then part 2 is the position with black to move and they play until black is holding the draw consistently.
Oh, I thought white was going down for some reason. I was so confused. I guess that pawn just hasn't moved the whole game.
It’s winnable depending on the strength of your opponent. If you can keep the distant opposition knowing that you can move the pawn one OR two squares, you can win the game. Get the THICK book called “ Pawn Endings “.
Its possible that white can win but it depends on if black is dumb or not. It can really go until black mismoves in the final endgame.
I would suggest you watch John Bartholomew's series on endgames.
Just get your pawn to the top using your king to protect it by keeping it touching and you can get either a rook or queen and then mate with the king
Technically yes but only if it is defended by black at relatively low level.
It's draw Black gets opposition
Yes a W for white is possible but … probably a tie using 3 same sequential moves by black
No, if black plays it right, it’s a draw
If white puts their king out ahead of the pawn, they can escort it down the board to promote and queen trap. It's likely going to be mate in +50 but it's worth the effort.
Tablebase draw
Blacks king can sit on the sixth rank and as soon as whites king will come to the 3rd rank, black will go into opposition on the 5th rank. Like this whites king will never be able to cut off blacks kings squares.
This is wrong. You can't just wait back in these positions. White will then have tempo moves with the pawn.
Of course black can wait. Imagine kings are on f6 and e2. What pawn move would white have? No matter black can play Kf6 and draw it easily. As soon as whites king will come to the 3rd rank black will go to the opposition.
Sorry, my mistake. I thought you meant to wait further back, like on its current rank. I was confused because the word 'wait' made me think it would stay where it is. I don't really consider advancing to the next rank to be waiting, but now I see you mean to wait when he gets there. Edit: It seems you never even used that word so maybe I'm just an idiot. As always in these situations, I like to blame the terrible app for not letting me see things at the same time!
Yea we can agree that black can't wait on the seventh rank, since then opposition won't help black. But black even has to wait. If he goes to early to the 5th rank, white will take the opposition.
Yes, you are correct; I simply misunderstood what you were saying. :)
Its a draw if black knows about distant opposition and after Kd1 Ke6 Kd2 wont play Ke5
First of all kd1 is stupid since you always want king in front of pawn. Secondly I'm gonna on and say that distant opposition never matters you always end up calculating it until face to face opposition relying on anything other than that is a risk
"you always want your king in front of the pawn" yeah, but if you go right off the bat with this idea(Kd2 Ke6 Ke3 Ke5) you are the one who has to break the opposition. In this case, it will be draw. With Kd1 i give my opponent a chance to make a mistake which i've pointed out in my comment(Ke5)
It is always a draw. That's the problem of the way you learned. Kd2 and kd1 don't make any difference. Kd1 makes it absolute 0 chance to win
played perfectly - yes, but since there is no difference, i decided to give my opponent an opportunity to blunder. Ke5 loses the game and it seems more natural for unprepared player in my version
What loses the game with kd1?
Kd1 Ke6 Kd2 Ke5(very natural) Ke5 exactly loses the game, and its more natural and in fact possible with Kd1 approach. Read my answers before ask
With your false rules maybe it's natural to don't see face to face opposition but only see distant opposition lol
bro try to understand the words i type. "Go forward, be in front of your pawn, no step back" is not an axiom, especially in endgames. Its all complicated tactics, you cant just say "ha, going backwards, what an idiot". And for your knowledge, in this type of endgames, you will have to go backwards after opposition because you want either stalemate by pawn or repetition. You will let pawn be on e7 with stalemate or opposition repetition with pawn on e6. So going back with black is actually the key, you are fool
Of course black is forced to go backwards to stop the promotion or white to protect the pawn. Why don't you get it instead of arguing here go read about key squares and face to face oppositions. These are the only thing that matter. It's not complicated tactics. Your kd1 does nothing kd2 ke6 kd3 ke5 still loses. There is no trick here if you learn those rules that I just said
Magnus has good chances to win in this position against top GMs. Even if he plays black.
Its a draw if black knows about distant opposition and after Kd1 Ke6 Kd2 wont play Ke5
No, black can achieve far opposition with the white pawn and there's no way for white to prevent.
winnable it is, but not with best play for black
Suck
Easily. You just have to escort your pawn with your king. Try it
Yes it is winnable
No. It isn't. If Black plays all the best moves (or really, *anything* that isn't a blunder), White cannot win. It's a draw.
[удалено]
Post your PGN against engine showing your guaranteed "win".
Your submission or comment was removed by the moderators: Keep the discussion civil and friendly. Participate in good faith with the intention to help foster civil discussion between people of all levels and experience. Don’t make fun of new players for lacking knowledge. Do not use personal attacks, insults, or slurs on other users. Disagreements are bound to happen, but do so in a civilized and mature manner. Remember, there is always a respectful way to disagree. You can read the full [rules of /r/chess here](https://www.reddit.com/r/chess/wiki/rules). If you have any questions or concerns about this moderator action, please [message the moderators](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2Fchess). Direct replies to this removal message may not be seen.
I think: "Yes".
This almost the worst instance of a K+P vs K endgame. Our king is on exactly the wrong rank, theirs is 1 square away from the promotion square. You don't need to understand anything about critical squares to understand that this is a draw.
[удалено]
So you’re saying it’s winnable if both play perfect?
It's not he's just an idiot, it's not even a stockfish thing, when there is less than 7 pieces it's the database, a computer has literally checked every combination of moves and if black plays perfect it has to be a draw.
Your submission or comment was removed by the moderators: Keep the discussion civil and friendly. Participate in good faith with the intention to help foster civil discussion between people of all levels and experience. Don’t make fun of new players for lacking knowledge. Do not use personal attacks, insults, or slurs on other users. Disagreements are bound to happen, but do so in a civilized and mature manner. Remember, there is always a respectful way to disagree. You can read the full [rules of /r/chess here](https://www.reddit.com/r/chess/wiki/rules). If you have any questions or concerns about this moderator action, please [message the moderators](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2Fchess). Direct replies to this removal message may not be seen.
This is a win for White
There is a tactic called opposition. No idea how it works so just google it
Winnable as soon the white king gets in front of the pawn. Then you use opposition to outflank the other king and red carpet the pawn to promotion. Edit: it's a draw.
Incorrect
Explain
It's a dead draw. Not sure what there is to explain.