[lang_fr]
– Finales

Finale (échecs)

Au jeu d’échecs, la finale est la dernière phase de la partie.

Il est difficile de lui fixer des limites précises, mais elle commence quand la plupart des pièces ont disparu. Certaines parties ne connaissent cependant pas cette dernière phase, car elles s’interrompent plus tôt (par précoce).

Bien qu’elles soient souvent négligées ou redoutées par les joueurs amateurs, les fins de partie constituent un aspect très intéressant du code ECE et tenté de présenter un panorama exhaustif des finales : 5 volumes publiés et des milliers de positions analysées. Depuis, le monde des finales est devenu un espace de recherche privilégié pour les ordinateurs.

Sur le plan technique, une connaissance mininale des finales est nécessaire pour déterminer s’il vaut encore la peine de poursuivre la partie ou non, par exemple. Certains pédagogues – à commencer par Siegbert Tarrasch – considèrent d’ailleurs que l’apprentissage du jeu d’échecs doit commencer par l’étude des finales. La seconde justification d’une connaissance, au moins minimale, c’est de permettre au joueur de concrétiser l’avantage matériel ou positionnel qu’il a acquis.

Sommaire Finales techniques Finales élémentaires Autres finales Finales et informatique Finales artistiques Spécialistes des finales Bibliographie

Finales techniques

[Haut de page]

On appelle finale technique une finale dans laquelle le camp le plus fort est certain de gagner (sans qu’il soit nécessaire de procéder à une promotion de pion) ; le résultat n’est qu’une question de technique échiquéenne de base.

• Roi et dame contre roi seul.
• Roi et tour contre roi seul
• Roi et deux fous contre roi seul.
• Roi, fou et cavalier contre roi seul

Finales élémentaires

[Haut de page]

• Roi et pion contre roi seul
• Roi + Dame contre Roi + Tour
• Roi + Dame contre Roi + Fou
• Roi + Dame Contre Roi + Cavalier
• Roi + Dame contre Roi + Pion
• Roi + Tour contre Roi + pion
• Roi + Fou contre Roi + pion
• Roi + Cavalier contre Roi + pion

Autres finales

[Haut de page]

Les autres finales peuvent être extrêmement ardues.

• Finales de Tour(s) (les plus fréquentes)
• Finales de Pièces mineures
• Finales de Dame(s).

Finales et informatique

[Haut de page]

Finales artistiques

[Haut de page]

Certains mat.

Spécialistes des finales

[Haut de page]

La quasi totalité des GM sont des connaisseurs des finales, mais certains y ont fait valoir une maîtrise exceptionnelle. Parmi lesquels :

• Youri Averbakh, qui a publié de nombreux ouvrages sur le sujet
• Bobby Fischer
• Viktor Kortchnoï, auteur de monographies sur les finales de tours, en particulier
• Vassily Smyslov

Bibliographie

[Haut de page]

• ISBN 978-2246558019)
• ISBN 978-2246574415)
• (en) Karsten Müller, Frank Lamprecht, Fundamental Chess Endings, Gambit, 2001 (ISBN 1-901983-53-6)
• (en) ISBN 978-1888690286)

[/lang_fr]
[lang_en]
– Final

Chess endgame

The line between checkmate, becomes a strong piece in the endgame. It can be brought to the center of the board and be a useful attacking piece.

Many people have composed draw when it seems White must lose.

Usually in the endgame, the stronger side should try to exchange pieces (queens), while avoiding the exchange of pawns. This generally makes it easier for him to convert his advantage into a won game. The defending side should strive for the opposite.

Endgames can be classified according to the type of pieces that remain. Some common types of endgames are discussed below.

Contents Categories The start of the endgame General considerations Common types of endgames 4.1 Basic checkmates 4.2 King and pawn endings 4.2.1 King and pawn versus king 4.3 Knight and pawn endings 4.3.1 Knight and pawn versus knight 4.4 Bishop and pawn endings 4.4.1 Bishop and pawn versus bishop on the same color 4.4.2 Bishops on opposite colors 4.5 Bishop versus knight endings (with pawns) 4.5.1 Bishop and pawn versus knight 4.5.2 Knight and pawn versus bishop 4.6 Rook and pawn endings 4.6.1 Rook and pawn versus rook 4.6.2 Quotation 4.7 Queen and pawn endings 4.7.1 Queen and pawn versus queen 4.8 Rook versus a minor piece 4.9 Two minor pieces versus a rook 4.10 Queen versus two rooks 4.11 Queen versus rook and minor piece 4.12 Queen versus rook 4.13 Piece versus pawns 4.14 Endings with no pawns 5 Positions with a material imbalance 6 Effect of tablebases on endgame theory 7 Longest forced win 8 Endgame classification 9 Frequency table 10 Quotations 11 Bibliography 12 Endgame articles

Categories

Endgames can be divided into three categories:

1. Theoretical endgames – positions where the correct line of play is generally known and well-analyzed, so the solution is a matter of technique
2. Practical endgames – positions arising in actual games, where skillful play should transform it into a theoretical endgame position
3. Artistic endgames (Portisch & Sárközy 1981:vii).

This article generally does not consider studies.

The start of the endgame

An endgame is when there are only a few pieces left. There is no strict criterion for when an endgame begins and different experts have different opinions. Flear 2007:7–8).

Alburt and Krogius give three characteristics of an endgame: (Alburt & Krogius 2000:12)

1. Endgames favor an aggressive king
2. Passed pawns increase greatly in importance
3. Zugzwang is often a factor in endgames and rarely in other stages of the game.

Some problem composers consider that the endgame starts when the player who is about to move can force a win or a draw against any variation of moves (Portisch & Sárközy 1981:vii).

middlegame if middlegame elements still describe the position. The game is not in the endgame if these apply:

• better development
• open files for attacking
• vulnerable king position
• misplaced pieces (Mednis & Crouch 1992:1).

General considerations

In endgames with pieces and pawns, an extra pawn is a winning advantage in 50 to 60 percent of the cases. It becomes more decisive if the stronger side has a positional advantage passed pawn.

In the endgame, it is better for the player with more pawns to avoid too many pawn exchanges, because they should be won for nothing. Also, endings with pawns on both sides of the board are much easier to win. A king and pawn endgame with an outside passed pawn should be a far easier win than a middlegame a rook ahead.

With the recent growth of endgame tablebase). A program which incorporates knowledge from such a database is able to play perfect chess on reaching any position in the database.

Max Euwe and Walter Meiden give these five generalizations:

1. In pawn endings, an extra pawn is decisive in more than 90 percent of the cases
2. In endgames with pieces and pawns, an extra pawn is a winning advantage in 50 to 60 percent of the cases. It becomes more decisive if the stronger side has a positional advantage
3. The king plays an important role in the endgame
4. rook endgames the initiative is usually worth at least a pawn
5. Two Euwe & Meiden 1966:xvi-xvii).

Common types of endgames

Basic checkmates

These are positions in which one side has only a king and the other side has one or two pieces and can checkmate procedure is long (up to 33 moves with correct play) and is difficult for a player who does not know the correct technique.

Two knights cannot force checkmate against a lone king (see fifty-move rule will often result in the game being drawn first. (While there is a board position that allows two knights to checkmate a lone king, such requires a careless move by the weaker side to execute; he cannot be driven into the corner.)

King and pawn endings

King and pawn endgames involve only Nunn 2010:43).

In king and pawn endings, an extra pawn is decisive in more than 90 percent of the cases (outside passed pawn is particularly deadly. The point of this is a decoy – while the defending king is preventing it from queening, the attacking king wins pawns on the other side.

corresponding squares are often decisive.

King and pawn versus king

[/lang_en]
[lang_en]

This is one of the most basic endgames. A draw results if the defending king can reach the square in front of the pawn or the square in front of that (or capture the pawn). If the attacking king can prevent that, the king will assist the pawn in being rook pawn is an exception because the king may not be able to get out of the way of its pawn.

Unlike most positions, king and pawn endgames can usually be analyzed to a definite conclusion, given enough skill and time. An error in a king and pawn endgame almost always turns a win into a draw or a draw into a loss – there is little chance for recovery. Accuracy is most important in these endgames. There are three fundamental ideas in these endgames: Nunn 2007:113ff).

Knight and pawn endings

Beliavsky & Mikhalchishin 2003:139

An outside passed pawn can outweigh a protected central pawn, unlike king and pawn endgames. A knight blockading a protected passed pawn attacks the protector, while the knight blockading an outside passed pawn is somewhat out of action.

Knight and pawn versus knight

This is generally a draw since the knight can be sacrificed for the pawn, however the king and knight must be covering squares in the pawn’s path. If the pawn reaches the seventh rank and is supported by its king and knight, it usually Fine & Benko 2003:112–14).

Bishop and pawn endings

bad bishop is one that is hemmed in by pawns of its own color, and has the burden of defending them.

The diagram on the right, from Molnar-Nagy, Hungary 1966, illustrates the concepts of good bishop versus bad bishop, opposition, zugzwang, and outside passed pawn. White wins with 1.e6! (vacating e5 for his king) Bxe6 2.Bc2! Bf7 3.Be4! Be8 4.Ke5! Seizing the opposition (i.e. the kings are two orthogonal squares apart, with the other player on move) and placing Black in zugzwang—he must either move his king, allowing White’s king to penetrate, or his bishop, allowing a decisive incursion by White’s bishop. 4…Bd7 5.Bxg6!

Bishop and pawn versus bishop on the same color

[/lang_en]
[lang_en]

Two rules given by Luigi Centurini in the 19th century apply:

• The game is a draw if the defending king can reach any square in front of the pawn that is opposite in color to the squares the bishops travel on.
• If the defending king is behind the pawn and the attacking king is near the pawn, the defender can draw only if his king is attacking the pawn, he has the opposition, and his bishop can move on two diagonals that each have at least two squares available (other than the square it is on (Fine & Benko 2003:154).

The position in the second diagram shows a winning position for White, although it requires accurate play. A Fine & Benko 2003:155–56).

This position was reached in a game from the 1965 Nunn 1995:169).

Bishops on opposite colors

Endings with bishops of opposite color, meaning that one bishop works on the light squares, the other one working on dark squares, are notorious for their fortress.

Bishop versus knight endings (with pawns)

Current Beliavsky & Mikhalchishin 1995:122).

Fine and Benko (Fine & Benko 2003:205) give four conclusions:

1. In general the bishop is better than the knight.
2. When there is a material advantage, the difference between the bishop and knight is not very important. However, the bishop usually wins more easily than the knight.
3. If the material is even, the position should be drawn. However, the bishop can exploit positional advantages more efficiently.
4. When most of the pawns are on the same color as the bishop (i.e. a bad bishop), the knight is better.

Bishop and pawn versus knight

This is a draw if the defending king is in front of the pawn or sufficiently close. The defending king can occupy a square in front of the pawn of the opposite color as the bishop and cannot be driven away. Otherwise the attacker can win (Fine & Benko 2003:206).

Knight and pawn versus bishop

This is a draw if the defending king is in front of the pawn or sufficiently near. The bishop is kept on a diagonal that the pawn must cross and the knight cannot both block the bishop and drive the defending king away. Otherwise the attacker can win (Fine & Benko 2003:209).

Rook and pawn endings

Rook and pawn endgames are often drawn in spite of one side having an extra pawn. (In some cases, two extra pawns are not enough to win.) An extra pawn is harder to convert to a win in a rook and pawn endgame than any other type of endgame except a bishop endgame with bishops on opposite colors. Rook endings are probably the deepest and most well studied endgames. They are a common type of endgame in practice, occurring in about 10 percent of all games (including ones that do not reach an endgame) (Emms 2008:141).

Three rules of thumb regarding rooks are worth noting:

1. Rooks should almost always be placed behind passed pawns, whether one’s own or the opponent’s (the Tarrasch rule). A notable exception is in the ending of a rook and pawn versus a rook, if the pawn is not too far advanced. In that case, the best place for the opposing rook is in front of the pawn.
2. Rooks are very poor defenders relative to their attacking strength. So it is often good to sacrifice a pawn for activity.
3. A rook on the seventh rank can wreak mayhem among the opponent’s pawns. The power of a rook on the seventh rank is not confined to the endgame. The classic example is Java board)

An important winning position in the knight pawns only), the frontal defense, and the short side defense. A general rule is that if the weaker side’s king can get to the queening square of the pawn, the game is a draw and otherwise it is a win, but there are many exceptions.

Rook and pawn versus rook

Generally (but not always), if the defending king can reach the queening square of the pawn the game is a draw (see Nunn 2007:148).

The most difficult case of a rook and pawn versus a rook is when the attacking rook is one file over from the pawn and the defending king is cut off on the other side. Rook and pawn versus rook endgame.

Quotation

• « All rook and pawn endings are drawn. »

The context of this quote shows it is a comment on the fact that a small advantage in a rook and pawn endgame is less likely to be converted into a win. Benko 2007:189).

Queen and pawn endings

In Queen versus pawn endgame.

Queen and pawn versus queen

The queen and pawn versus queen endgame is the second most common of the « piece and pawn versus piece » endgames, after Nunn 2007:148). This combination is a win less frequently than the equivalent ending with rooks.

Rook versus a minor piece

The difference in minor piece is about two points or a little less, the equivalent of two pawns.

• A rook and a pawn versus a minor piece: normally a win for the rook but there are some draws. In particular, if the pawn is on its sixth rank and is a wrong bishop.
• A rook versus a minor piece: normally a draw but in some cases the rook wins, see pawnless chess endgame.
• A rook versus a minor piece and one pawn: usually a draw but the rook may win.
• A rook versus a minor piece and two pawns: usually a draw but the minor piece may win.
• A rook versus a minor piece and three pawns: a win for the minor piece.

If both sides have pawns, the result essentially depends on how many pawns the minor piece has for the exchange:

• No pawns for the exchange (i.e. same number of pawns on each side): the rook usually wins.
• One pawn for the exchange (i.e. minor piece has one more pawn): the rook usually wins, but it is technically difficult. If all of the pawns are on one side of the board it is usually a draw.
• Two pawns for the exchange: this is normally a draw. With a bishop either side may have winning chances. With a knight, the rook may have winning chances and the defense is difficult for the knight if the pawns are scattered.
• Three pawns for the exchange: this is normally a win for the minor piece (Fine & Benko 2003:459ff).

Two minor pieces versus a rook

In an endgame, two Initiative is more important in this endgame than any other. The general outcome can be broken down by the number of pawns.

• The two pieces have one or more extra pawns: always a win for the pieces.
• Same number of pawns: usually a draw but the two pieces win more often than the rook.
• The rook has one extra pawn: usually a draw but either side may have winning chances, depending on positional factors.
• The rook has two additional pawns: normally a win for the rook (Fine & Benko 2003:449–58).

Queen versus two rooks

[/lang_en]
[lang_en]

Without pawns this is normally drawn but either side wins in some positions. A queen and pawn are normally equivalent to two rooks, which is usually a draw if both sides have an equal number of additional pawns. Two rooks plus one pawn versus a queen is also generally drawn. Otherwise, if either side has an additional pawn, that side normally wins (Fine & Benko 2003:566–67).

Queen versus rook and minor piece

If there are no pawns, the position is usually drawn, but either side wins in some positions. A queen is equivalent to a rook and bishop plus one pawn. If the queen has an additional pawn it wins, but with difficulty. A rook and bishop plus two pawns win over a queen (Fine & Benko 2003:563).

Queen versus rook

• Without pawns, the queen normally wins but it can be difficult and there are some drawn positions (see Philidor position#Queen versus rook).
• If the rook has one pawn drawing positions are possible, depending on the pawn and the proximity of the rook and king. See fortress (chess)#Rook and pawn versus queen. Otherwise the queen wins.
• If the rook has two connected pawns the position is usually a draw. For any other two pawns, the queen wins except in the positions where a fortress with one pawn can be reached.
• If the rook has three or more pawns the position is usually a draw but there are cases in which the queen wins and some in which the rook wins.
• If the queen also has a pawn or pawns it wins except in unusual positions (Fine & Benko 2003:570–79).

Piece versus pawns

There are many cases for a lone piece versus pawns. The position of the pawns is critical.

• Minor piece versus pawns: A minor piece versus one or two pawns is normally a draw, unless the pawns are advanced. Three pawns either draw or win, depending on how advanced they are. Three connected pawns win against a bishop if they all get past their fourth rank (Müller & Lamprecht 2001:62).
• Rook versus pawns: If the rook’s king is not near, one pawn draws and two pawns win. If the rook’s king is near, the rook wins over one or two pawns and draws against three. Four pawns usually win but the rook may be able to draw, depending on their position. More than four pawns win against the rook (Fine & Benko 2003:275,292–93).
• Queen versus pawns: A queen can win against any number of pawns, depending on how advanced they are. The queen would win against eight pawns on the second rank but a pawn on the seventh rank may draw (see Fine & Benko 2003:526ff).

Endings with no pawns

Besides the basic checkmates, there are other endings with no pawns. They do not occur very often in practice. Two of the most common pawnless endgames (when the defense has a piece in addition to the king) are (1) a queen versus a rook and (2) a rook and bishop versus a rook. A queen wins against a rook, see rook and bishop versus rook endgame).

Positions with a material imbalance

A rook is worth roughly two pawns plus a bishop or a knight. A bishop and knight are worth roughly a rook and a pawn, and a queen is worth a rook, a chess piece relative value). Three pawns are often enough to win against a minor piece, but two pawns rarely are.

However, with rooks on the board, the bishop often outweighs the pawns. This is because the bishop defends against enemy rook attacks, while the bishop’s own rook attacks enemy pawns and reduces the enemy rook to passivity. This relates to Rule 2 with rooks (above).

A bishop is usually worth more than a knight. A bishop is especially valuable when there are pawns on both wings of the board, since it can intercept them quickly.

Effect of tablebases on endgame theory

Müller & Lamprecht 2001:8,400–406):

• Queen versus rook (see Nunn 2002:49ff).
• Queen and pawn versus queen. Tablebases have shown that this can be won in many more positions than was thought, but the logic of the moves is presently beyond human understanding (Nunn 1995:265).
• Queen versus two bishops. This was thought to be a draw due to the existence of a drawing Nunn 2002:290ff).

• Queen versus two knights. This was thought to be a draw and generally it is, but the queen has more winning positions than was previously thought. Also, many analysts gave a position (see diagram) that they thought was a draw but it is actually a win for the queen (Müller & Lamprecht 2001:339).

• Two bishops versus a knight. This was thought to be a draw but the bishops generally win. However, it takes up to 66 moves. The position in the diagram was thought to be a draw for over one hundred years, but tablebases show that White wins in 45 moves. All of the long wins go through this type of semi-fortress position. It takes several moves to force Black out of the temporary fortress in the corner; then precise play with the bishops prevents Black from forming the temporary fortress in another corner (Speelman 1981:109).
• Queen and bishop versus two rooks. This was thought to be a draw but the queen and bishop usually win. It takes up to 84 moves (Nunn 2002:367ff).
• Rook and bishop versus bishop and knight, bishops on opposite colors. This was thought to be a draw but the rook and bishop generally win. It takes up to 98 moves (Nunn 2002:342ff).

Longest forced win

In October 2005, Marc Bourzutschky and Yakov Konoval announced that a position in the ending of a king, two rooks and a knight versus a king and two rooks requires 290 moves to convert to a simpler winning endgame. This type of ending is thought to be a draw in general. The old record was 243 moves from a position in a rook and knight versus two knights endgame, discovered by Lewis Stiller in 1991^[7] (Endings of a rook and knight versus two knights are generally draws.) On March 10, 2006 Marc Bourzutschky and Yakov Konoval announced a new record for the longest endgame, requiring 330 moves to conversion to a simpler ending. In May 2006 a record-shattering 517-move endgame was announced. Mark Bourzutschky found it using a program written by Yakov Konoval. Black’s first move is 1. … Rd7+ and White wins the rook in 517 moves (see diagram).

It should be noted that such endgames do not necessarily represent strictly optimal play from both sides, as Black may delay checkmate by allowing an earlier conversion or White may accelerate it by delaying a conversion (or not making one at all). For example, for the earlier position found by Stiller, if Black plays to delay conversion as long as possible and White plays to convert as soon as possible, White captures a knight on the 243rd move and checkmates on the 246th move.^[9]

The fifty-move rule is ignored in the calculation of these results and lengths.

Endgame classification

Endgames can be classified by the material on the board. The standard classification system lists each player’s material, including the kings, in the following order: king, queen, bishops, knights, rooks, pawn. Each piece is designated by its algebraic symbol.

For example, if White has a king and pawn, and Black has only a king, the endgame is classified KPK. If White has bishop and knight, and Black has a rook, the endgame is classified KBNKR. Note that KNBKR would be incorrect; bishops come before knights.

In positions with two or more bishops on the board, a « bishop signature » may be added to clarify the relationship between the bishops. Two methods have been used. The informal method is to designate one color of squares as « x » and the other color as « y ». An endgame of KBPKB can be written KBPKB x-y if the bishops are opposite-colored, or KBPKB x-x if the bishops are same-colored. The more formal method is to use a four digit suffix of the form abcd:

• a = number of White light-squared bishops
• b = number of White dark-squared bishops
• c = number of Black light squared bishops
• d = number of Black dark-squared bishops

Thus, the aforementioned endgame can be written KBPKB_1001 for opposite-color bishops, and KBPKB_1010 for same-color bishops.

GBR code is an alternative method of endgame classification.

The Encyclopedia of Chess Endings had a different classification scheme, somewhat similar to the [10]

Frequency table

The table below lists the most common endings in actual games by percentage (percentage of games, not percentage of endings. Generally pawns go along with the pieces.) (Müller & Lamprecht 2001:11–12, 304)
[/lang_en]
[lang_en]

Endgame frequency table

Percent	Pieces	Pieces
8.45	rook	rook
6.76	rook & bishop	rook & knight
3.45	two rooks	two rooks
3.37	rook & bishop	rook & bishop (same color)
3.29	bishop	knight
3.09	rook & knight	rook & knight
2.87	king & pawns	king (and pawns)
1.92	rook & bishop	rook & bishop (opposite color)
1.87	queen	queen
1.77	rook & bishop	rook
1.65	bishop	bishop (same color)
1.56	knight	knight
1.51	rook	bishop
1.42	rook & knight	rook
1.11	bishop	bishop (opposite color)
1.01	bishop	pawns
0.97	rook	knight
0.92	knight	pawns
0.90	queen & minor piece	queen
0.81	rook	two minor pieces
0.75	rook	pawns
0.69	queen	rook & minor piece
0.67	rook & pawn	rook
0.56	rook & two pawns	rook
0.42	queen	pawns
0.40	queen	rook
0.31	queen	two rooks
0.23	king & one pawn	king
0.17	queen	minor piece
0.09	queen & one pawn	queen
0.08	queen	two minor pieces
0.02	bishop & knight	king
0.01	queen	three minor pieces

Quotations

• « [I]n order to improve your game you must study the endgame before anything else; for, whereas the endings can be studied and mastered by themselves, the middlegame and the opening must be studied in relation to the endgame. » (Emphasis in original.) (Capablanca 1966:19)
• « … the endgame is as important as the opening and middlegame … three of the five losses sustained by Hooper & Whyld 1992)
• « Studying the [11]
• « The hardest thing in chess is to win a won game. » – Frank Marshall

Bibliography

There are many books on endgames, see Chess endgame literature for a large list and the history. Some of the most popular current ones are:

• Winning Chess Endings, by ISBN 1-85744-348-9. A good introductory book.
• Just the Facts!: Winning Endgame Knowledge in One Volume, ISBN 1-889323-15-2. A good introductory book.
• Essential Chess Endings: the Tournament Player’s Guide, by James Howell, 1997, ISBN 0-7134-8189-7. A small but comprehensive book.
• Grandmaster Secrets: Endings, by ISBN 0-938650-66-1. An elementary book.
• Pandolfini’s Endgame Course, by ISBN 0-671-65688-0. Many short elementary endgame lessons.
• Fundamental Chess Endings, by ISBN 1-901983-53-6. Highly regarded – comprehensive and modern.
• ISBN 0-8129-3493-8. The 1941 edition by Fine was the first of the modern endgame books in English. It was recently revised by Benko.
• Dvoretsky’s Endgame Manual, second edition, by ISBN 1-888690-28-3. A modern manual book by a noted chess teacher.
• Silman’s Complete Endgame Course: From Beginner To Master, ISBN 1-890085-10-3. Has a unique approach, it presents material in order of difficulty and the need to know of various classes of players. It starts with material for the absolute beginner and progresses up to master level material.

Endgame articles

[/lang_en]