Take the 2-minute tour ×
Chess Stack Exchange is a question and answer site for serious players and enthusiasts of chess. It's 100% free, no registration required.

For example in the Exchange Variation of the Spanish 1. e4 e5 2. Nf3 Nc6 3. Bb5 a6 4. Bxc6 dxc6, White gives Black the Bishop pair, but gains a potentially winning pawns-only endgame. Are there other situations where a player may ruin an opponent's pawn-structure thus gaining a (potentially) decisive endgame advantage?

On the other hand, are there openings in which a player may decide to sacrifice his pawn structure in order to get other kind of advantages?

I'm not looking for 'bad' pawn-structures, I'm looking for those which are winning/losing according to theory, if we remove all pieces from the board except the Kings.

share|improve this question
    
I think this question is way too broad to answer. It's known that in certain opening one side may be attempting to hold on for the endgame, but in many cases by the time most of the pieces have been exchanged the pawn structure might be so drastically changed that only the vaguest outline of the opening pawn structure remains. Are you asking more for openings where one side concedes static weaknesses in pawn structure for chances for an attack vs opening where a player gives up attacking chances for a more secure and static long-term advantage in pawn structure? –  Robert Kaucher Jun 25 '12 at 16:59
    
Not exactly. To be precise, I'm searching for openings whose pawn-structure can give a theoric endgame advantage. Some of my club mates, especially during our blitz tournaments, being tactically not so sharp, tend to quickly exchange pieces even if they are in a slightly inferior position, because they feel much more comfortable with less men on the board. Of course, if I were able to lead them into "losing pawn position" from the beginning of the game, I could fully exploit their weakness. :) That's all. –  shuuchan Jun 25 '12 at 19:10
    
@RobertKaucher: Future world champion JR Capablanca fear that reigning world champion Lasker had gotten an endgame advantage over him on move 5 by playing the Exchange variation of the Ruy (and his play throughout the whole game reflected this fear). If such an early "advantage" is enough to intimidate a future world champion, imagine whatvit could do so to us mortals. –  Tom Au Apr 17 '13 at 22:09

2 Answers 2

up vote 4 down vote accepted

Here's a somewhat cheap answer: the Nimzowitsch Variation of the Caro-Kann Defense, given by 1. e4 c6 2. d4 d5 3. Nc3 dxe4 4. Nxe4 Nf6 5. Nxf6+ exf6. In the resulting position,

Nimzowitsch Caro-Kann

if we were to remove all the pieces and leave a pure king-and-pawns endgame, then White would have a winning advantage, because he has a healthy pawn majority on the queenside which can create a passer, while the doubled pawns of Black's kingside majority make it so that White can prevent her from creating a passer. So this is an accurate answer to your question. The only reason I call it "cheap" is because the pawn structure here is just a mirror-image of the Ruy Lopez Exchange structure your question already mentions, but I guess that doesn't make it any less of an example.

I think one reason your question hasn't gotten any answers until now, though, is that for the resulting pawn endgame to really be a winning one structurally, it seems you need this feature that one side can forcibly make a passer while the other side can't, and that means having a workable majority for one side and a "broken" one for the other. That basically requires there to be (1) some doubled pawns for one player, and (2) two distinct sides of the board, in terms of the pawn islands remaining. (E.g. if the white e-pawn and black d-pawn hadn't been exchanged in my example, then the pawn endgame wouldn't yet be a winning one.) And there's actually not so many (truly distinct) ways for that to happen, at least not in realistic ways.

Another common sort of opening that would at least feature a very favorable pawn endgame for one side is those in which one side has an isolated queen pawn. The side that has the isolani could find his king being so tied down to its defense that the other side can force a win. But this won't always be the case, so I wouldn't give that as an answer in and of itself. If you want to find some further openings that at least get part of the way toward what you're after, ones with an isolated queen pawn would be a promising place to look.

All in all, for the reasons I've spelled out, I'm not too optimistic that you'll find all that many (essentially different) examples of what you're after, but I hope this helps.


That said, there is an entire class of openings that provide truly cheap answers to your question: gambit openings. Since these would feature pawn endgames with a pawn deficit (at least), these will generally be lost for the gambiteer's side. I sure wouldn't want the pawn endgame from the Danish Gambit line 1. e4 e5 2. d4 exd4 3. c3 dxc3 4. Bc4 cxb2 5. Bxb2, for instance :)

Danish Gambit

share|improve this answer
    
Yes, of course I was speaking of structures like the first one you have posted, with both players having the same number of pawns (=no accepted gambits). Thank you for your precise explanation. :) –  shuuchan Jul 20 '12 at 6:58

Although not exactly the Exchange Variation, the Berlin Wall (also arising from the Spanish and sharing many features with the Exchange Variation) is a very common opening nowadays on top GM games:

[Title "The Berlin Wall"]
[FEN ""]

1. e4 e5 2. Nf3 Nc6 3. Bb5 Nf6 4. O-O Nxe4 5. d4 Nd6 6. Bxc6 dxc6 7. dxe5 Nf5 8. Qxd8 Kxd8.

Despite being technically and endgame and the white paw majority on the kingside being more or less mobile (thus awarding him a theoretically tangible advantage), this is a modern tabiya of chess.

share|improve this answer

Your Answer

 
discard

By posting your answer, you agree to the privacy policy and terms of service.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.