Skip to main content
Chess

Return to Answer

replaced http://chess.stackexchange.com/ with https://chess.stackexchange.com/
Source Link
Community Bot
Community Bot
  • 1

The concept of key squares, in general, is defined for pawn endgames with immobile pawns. It defines a winning strategy in two steps.

  1. Occupy one of the key squares with your king (usually, using zugzwang).
  2. Once this has been done, the opposing king cannot defend his pawns passively (but you should computre whether it can counterattack).

A typical example is the theory of the endgame King+pawn vs King. The result of any position with this material can easily be determined using the key squares, as explained in: http://chess.stackexchange.com/a/9239/9082https://chess.stackexchange.com/a/9239/9082 .

Your example is about opposition, and thinking in the terms of key squares doesn't seem to really clarify things here. In general, an opposition should be linked to a certain "axis", and here the plan is to use the 7th row. Here is what happens if White tries to use the opposition with the 6th row as an axis:

[FEN "8/5k2/1K4p1/5p1p/5P1P/6P1/8/8 w - - 0 1"]

1. Kb7! Ke6 2. Kc6! Ke7 3. Kd5? Kd7 4.Ke5 Ke7 {and Black holds the opposition, while the white king has not reached the key squares. Draw}

The correct plan is this one:

[FEN "8/5k2/1K4p1/5p1p/5P1P/6P1/8/8 w - - 0 1"]

1. Kb7! Ke6 2. Kc6!  Ke7 3. Kc7!? Ke6 4. Kd8 Kd5 {The tentative of a counter-attack comes too late} 5. Ke7 Ke4 6. Kf6 Kf3 7. Kxg6 Kg4 8. Kf6 Kxg3 9.Kg5 {White wins}

You can find similar examples the book of Mark Dvoretsky "Endgame Manual".

The concept of key squares, in general, is defined for pawn endgames with immobile pawns. It defines a winning strategy in two steps.

  1. Occupy one of the key squares with your king (usually, using zugzwang).
  2. Once this has been done, the opposing king cannot defend his pawns passively (but you should computre whether it can counterattack).

A typical example is the theory of the endgame King+pawn vs King. The result of any position with this material can easily be determined using the key squares, as explained in: http://chess.stackexchange.com/a/9239/9082 .

Your example is about opposition, and thinking in the terms of key squares doesn't seem to really clarify things here. In general, an opposition should be linked to a certain "axis", and here the plan is to use the 7th row. Here is what happens if White tries to use the opposition with the 6th row as an axis:

[FEN "8/5k2/1K4p1/5p1p/5P1P/6P1/8/8 w - - 0 1"]

1. Kb7! Ke6 2. Kc6! Ke7 3. Kd5? Kd7 4.Ke5 Ke7 {and Black holds the opposition, while the white king has not reached the key squares. Draw}

The correct plan is this one:

[FEN "8/5k2/1K4p1/5p1p/5P1P/6P1/8/8 w - - 0 1"]

1. Kb7! Ke6 2. Kc6!  Ke7 3. Kc7!? Ke6 4. Kd8 Kd5 {The tentative of a counter-attack comes too late} 5. Ke7 Ke4 6. Kf6 Kf3 7. Kxg6 Kg4 8. Kf6 Kxg3 9.Kg5 {White wins}

You can find similar examples the book of Mark Dvoretsky "Endgame Manual".

The concept of key squares, in general, is defined for pawn endgames with immobile pawns. It defines a winning strategy in two steps.

  1. Occupy one of the key squares with your king (usually, using zugzwang).
  2. Once this has been done, the opposing king cannot defend his pawns passively (but you should computre whether it can counterattack).

A typical example is the theory of the endgame King+pawn vs King. The result of any position with this material can easily be determined using the key squares, as explained in: https://chess.stackexchange.com/a/9239/9082 .

Your example is about opposition, and thinking in the terms of key squares doesn't seem to really clarify things here. In general, an opposition should be linked to a certain "axis", and here the plan is to use the 7th row. Here is what happens if White tries to use the opposition with the 6th row as an axis:

[FEN "8/5k2/1K4p1/5p1p/5P1P/6P1/8/8 w - - 0 1"]

1. Kb7! Ke6 2. Kc6! Ke7 3. Kd5? Kd7 4.Ke5 Ke7 {and Black holds the opposition, while the white king has not reached the key squares. Draw}

The correct plan is this one:

[FEN "8/5k2/1K4p1/5p1p/5P1P/6P1/8/8 w - - 0 1"]

1. Kb7! Ke6 2. Kc6!  Ke7 3. Kc7!? Ke6 4. Kd8 Kd5 {The tentative of a counter-attack comes too late} 5. Ke7 Ke4 6. Kf6 Kf3 7. Kxg6 Kg4 8. Kf6 Kxg3 9.Kg5 {White wins}

You can find similar examples the book of Mark Dvoretsky "Endgame Manual".

Source Link
Alexandre Aksenov
Alexandre Aksenov
  • 364
  • 2
  • 7

The concept of key squares, in general, is defined for pawn endgames with immobile pawns. It defines a winning strategy in two steps.

  1. Occupy one of the key squares with your king (usually, using zugzwang).
  2. Once this has been done, the opposing king cannot defend his pawns passively (but you should computre whether it can counterattack).

A typical example is the theory of the endgame King+pawn vs King. The result of any position with this material can easily be determined using the key squares, as explained in: http://chess.stackexchange.com/a/9239/9082 .

Your example is about opposition, and thinking in the terms of key squares doesn't seem to really clarify things here. In general, an opposition should be linked to a certain "axis", and here the plan is to use the 7th row. Here is what happens if White tries to use the opposition with the 6th row as an axis:

[FEN "8/5k2/1K4p1/5p1p/5P1P/6P1/8/8 w - - 0 1"]

1. Kb7! Ke6 2. Kc6! Ke7 3. Kd5? Kd7 4.Ke5 Ke7 {and Black holds the opposition, while the white king has not reached the key squares. Draw}

The correct plan is this one:

[FEN "8/5k2/1K4p1/5p1p/5P1P/6P1/8/8 w - - 0 1"]

1. Kb7! Ke6 2. Kc6!  Ke7 3. Kc7!? Ke6 4. Kd8 Kd5 {The tentative of a counter-attack comes too late} 5. Ke7 Ke4 6. Kf6 Kf3 7. Kxg6 Kg4 8. Kf6 Kxg3 9.Kg5 {White wins}

You can find similar examples the book of Mark Dvoretsky "Endgame Manual".