Queen and pawn versus queen endgame

Last updated
Chess kll45.svg Chess qll45.svg Chess pll45.svg Chess kdl45.svg Chess qdl45.svg
Müller & Lamprecht, diagram 9.12A
abcdefgh
8
Chessboard480.svg
Chess qlt45.svg
Chess klt45.svg
Chess kdt45.svg
Chess plt45.svg
Chess qdt45.svg
8
77
66
55
44
33
22
11
abcdefgh
White to play wins; Black to play draws

The queen and pawn versus queen endgame is a chess endgame in which both sides have a queen and one side has a pawn, which one tries to promote. It is very complicated and difficult to play. Cross-checks are often used as a device to win the game by forcing the exchange of queens. It is almost always a draw if the defending king is in front of the pawn. [1]

Contents

Karsten Müller and Frank Lamprecht say that this endgame occurs quite frequently but Mark Dvoretsky says that it occurs quite seldom. [2] [3] This is the second most common "piece and pawn versus piece" endgame, next to the rook and pawn versus rook endgame. [4]

History

Before about 1940 all that was known about this endgame was based on some superficial analysis of a few positions from the time of Philidor (1726–95). Analysts gradually started to analyze the endgame. The endgame occurred in a 1944 game between Botvinnik and Ravinsky (below) and much analysis followed. Paul Keres published a large amount of analysis in 1947–49. This analysis was put to the test in the 1954 game between Botvinnik and Minev (below). Minev followed the suggestions of Keres and lost – revealing major flaws in the analysis. In 1955, Shakhmaty v SSSR started a competition for the best analysis of this endgame. Several theorists had contributed useful analysis by the time the competition ended in 1959. Early analysts thought that the ending was almost always drawn with a knight pawn, but Yuri Averbakh questioned that in the 1950s. Averbakh, working with previous analysis, published his extensive analysis in 1962. [5]

A complete analysis was not done until the advent of endgame tablebases, which showed that more positions can be won than was previously thought. Before tablebases, Averbach provided the best coverage, but the 70 pages of analysis in Comprehensive Chess Endgames mainly covered only simple positions with the pawn already on the seventh rank. [6] John Nunn wrote three books based on the most important endgames in the five-piece endgame tablebases but omitted this endgame because "... it proved too hard to understand". [7] He also commented "This is the trickiest of all five-man endings, which is unfortunate as it is one of the most common to arise in practice." [8]

General considerations

According to Reuben Fine and Pal Benko, this ending is a draw unless the pawn is a bishop pawn or a central pawn (i.e. king pawn or queen pawn) and the pawn is in the seventh rank and is supported by its king. If the defending king can get in front of the pawn, the game is a draw; otherwise it is best for the defender to keep his king far away from the pawn. The defender should keep checking until he runs out of check, and then pin the pawn. [9] Based on computer analysis, Müller and Lamprecht give a different description. According to them, normally the defending king needs to be in front of the pawn. A rook pawn or knight pawn is a theoretical draw if the defending king is in front or near the pawn or if the king is in the corner opposite the pawn's promotion square. A knight pawn has more practical winning chances than a rook pawn. A bishop pawn or central pawn is a win if the defending king is not in front of the pawn. A bishop pawn has better winning chances than a central pawn. The position of the defending king is especially important. [10] John Nunn states that analysis since Fine's initial work (published in 1941 in Basic Chess Endings ) has shown that there are many more winning positions than were known at that time (ignoring the fifty-move rule in some cases). [11] Wins by the side with the pawn take up to 59 moves. [12] A cross-check may be necessary to win.

Edmar Mednis gave this breakdown when the defending king is not able to help:

John Nunn gives this summary for the defense:

Naturally, the less advanced the pawn is, the better the defensive chances. [14]

Rook pawn

Nunn, 2007, p. 150
abcdefgh
8
Chessboard480.svg
Chess oot45.svg
Chess xot45.svg
Chess xot45.svg
Chess oot45.svg
Chess xot45.svg
Chess oot45.svg
Chess oot45.svg
Chess oot45.svg
Chess oot45.svg
Chess plt45.svg
Chess klt45.svg
Chess qlt45.svg
Chess xot45.svg
Chess xot45.svg
Chess oot45.svg
Chess xot45.svg
Chess qdt45.svg
8
77
66
55
44
33
22
11
abcdefgh
Black king on white dots: win with White to move, draw with Black to move; on black dots – win with either to move; other squares – draw

In 1985 the chess computer Belle completed the endgame tablebase for this ending. The rook pawn is the most important for actual games since it arises the most frequently, since it is the least likely pawn to have been exchanged. [15] A rook pawn needs to be on at least the sixth rank to have decent winning chances. [16]

Mednis gave the following guidelines, based on his analysis of the tablebase. Assume that White has a pawn on the h-file.

To draw:

To win:

abcdefgh
8
Chessboard480.svg
Chess qdt45.svg
Chess plt45.svg
Chess kdt45.svg
Chess qlt45.svg
Chess klt45.svg
8
77
66
55
44
33
22
11
abcdefgh
After ...Qa7+

Example of a long theoretical win involving a rook pawn. [18]

Mate can be forced in 235 plies, but under the fifty-move rule the position is a draw. [19]

Knight pawn

Nunn, 2007, p. 151
abcdefgh
8
Chessboard480.svg
Chess oot45.svg
Chess xot45.svg
Chess xot45.svg
Chess xot45.svg
Chess xot45.svg
Chess oot45.svg
Chess xot45.svg
Chess xot45.svg
Chess xot45.svg
Chess xot45.svg
Chess oot45.svg
Chess xot45.svg
Chess xot45.svg
Chess xot45.svg
Chess xot45.svg
Chess plt45.svg
Chess xot45.svg
Chess xot45.svg
Chess xot45.svg
Chess xot45.svg
Chess oot45.svg
Chess klt45.svg
Chess xot45.svg
Chess xot45.svg
Chess oot45.svg
Chess oot45.svg
Chess oot45.svg
Chess qlt45.svg
Chess oot45.svg
Chess oot45.svg
Chess xot45.svg
Chess xot45.svg
Chess xot45.svg
Chess oot45.svg
Chess xot45.svg
Chess xot45.svg
Chess xot45.svg
Chess qdt45.svg
8
77
66
55
44
33
22
11
abcdefgh

A knight pawn should be on at least the fifth rank to have good winning chances. A knight pawn on the fifth rank has better winning chances than a rook pawn on the sixth rank. There are two reasons for this:

The best place for the defending king is in front of the pawn and the second-best place is in the corner opposite its promotion square. [20]

Bishop pawn

Nunn, 2007, p. 152
abcdefgh
8
Chessboard480.svg
Chess oot45.svg
Chess xot45.svg
Chess xot45.svg
Chess xot45.svg
Chess oot45.svg
Chess xot45.svg
Chess xot45.svg
Chess xot45.svg
Chess xot45.svg
Chess xot45.svg
Chess xot45.svg
Chess xot45.svg
Chess oot45.svg
Chess plt45.svg
Chess xot45.svg
Chess xot45.svg
Chess xot45.svg
Chess xot45.svg
Chess oot45.svg
Chess klt45.svg
Chess xot45.svg
Chess xot45.svg
Chess xot45.svg
Chess xot45.svg
Chess xot45.svg
Chess qlt45.svg
Chess xot45.svg
Chess xot45.svg
Chess xot45.svg
Chess xot45.svg
Chess xot45.svg
Chess xot45.svg
Chess xot45.svg
Chess xot45.svg
Chess xot45.svg
Chess xot45.svg
Chess xot45.svg
Chess xot45.svg
Chess xot45.svg
Chess xot45.svg
Chess xot45.svg
Chess xot45.svg
Chess qdt45.svg
Chess xot45.svg
Chess xot45.svg
Chess xot45.svg
8
77
66
55
44
33
22
11
abcdefgh

A bishop pawn offers the best winning chances. One reason is that there is no drawing zone in the opposite corner for the black king if the pawn is on at least the fourth rank. If the pawn is on the fifth rank the defender's chances are small unless the king is in front of the pawn. A pawn on the sixth rank wins unless the defending king is in front of the pawn. [21]

Central pawn

Nunn, 2007, p. 152
abcdefgh
8
Chessboard480.svg
Chess oot45.svg
Chess xot45.svg
Chess oot45.svg
Chess oot45.svg
Chess xot45.svg
Chess oot45.svg
Chess oot45.svg
Chess xot45.svg
Chess plt45.svg
Chess oot45.svg
Chess xot45.svg
Chess xot45.svg
Chess oot45.svg
Chess klt45.svg
Chess xot45.svg
Chess xot45.svg
Chess xot45.svg
Chess qlt45.svg
Chess xot45.svg
Chess xot45.svg
Chess xot45.svg
Chess xot45.svg
Chess xot45.svg
Chess xot45.svg
Chess xot45.svg
Chess xot45.svg
Chess xot45.svg
Chess qdt45.svg
Chess xot45.svg
Chess xot45.svg
Chess xot45.svg
Chess xot45.svg
Chess xot45.svg
Chess xot45.svg
Chess xot45.svg
Chess xot45.svg
Chess xot45.svg
8
77
66
55
44
33
22
11
abcdefgh

A central pawn has better chances to win than a rook pawn or knight pawn, but not as good as a bishop pawn. As with the bishop pawn, there is no drawing zone for the defending king in the opposite corner. It is better for the defending king to be on the "short side" of the pawn rather than the "long side". [22]

abcdefgh
8
Chessboard480.svg
Chess qlt45.svg
Chess qdt45.svg
Chess kdt45.svg
Chess plt45.svg
Chess klt45.svg
8
77
66
55
44
33
22
11
abcdefgh
After ...Qh6+

Example of a long theoretical win involving a central pawn. [23]

Mate can be forced in 247 plies. [24]

Examples from games

Botvinnik - Ravinsky, Moscow (ch-USSR) 1944

Botvinnik vs. Ravinsky, 1944
abcdefgh
8
Chessboard480.svg
Chess qlt45.svg
Chess kdt45.svg
Chess plt45.svg
Chess klt45.svg
Chess qdt45.svg
8
77
66
55
44
33
22
11
abcdefgh
After 86...b1=Q
abcdefgh
8
Chessboard480.svg
Chess qdt45.svg
Chess plt45.svg
Chess klt45.svg
Chess kdt45.svg
Chess qlt45.svg
8
77
66
55
44
33
22
11
abcdefgh
After 126.Qf4+

In 1944 Botvinnik played a perfect endgame against Grigory Ravinsky. [25] The starting position, after 86...b1=Q, is winning.

87.Qa7+! [The only move that wins! [26] ] 87...Kf6 88.Qf7+ Ke5 89.Kh6 Qh1+ 90.Kg7 Kd4 91.Qf6+ Kc5 92.Kg8 Kb5 93.g7 Ka4 94.Kf7 Qh5+ 95.Ke7 Qc5+ 96.Qd6 Qg5+ 97.Kf8 Qf5+ 98.Ke8 Qh5+ 99.Kf8 Qf5+ 100.Ke7 Qg5+ 101.Qf6 Qc5+ 102.Kd7 Qd5+ 103.Kc7 Qa5+ 104.Kb7 Qb5+ 105.Qb6 Qd7+ 106.Qc7! Qb5+ 107.Ka7 Qd5 108.Kb8 Qg8+ 109.Ka7 Qd5 110.Qf4+ Ka5 111.Qf6 Qc5+ 112.Kb7 Qb5+ 113.Kc7 Qc5+ 114.Kd7 Qd5+ 115.Ke7 Qc5+ 116.Kf7 Qc4+ 117.Ke7 Qc5+ 118.Ke6 Qc8+ 119.Ke5 Qc3+ 120.Kf5 Qd3+ 121.Kg5 Qe3+ 122.Kg6 Qe8+ 123.Kh6 Qg8 124.Qe5+ Ka4 125.Kg6 Qc8 126.Qf4+ 1–0

A possible continuation, by endgame tablebases, could have been:

abcdefgh
8
Chessboard480.svg
Chess qdt45.svg
Chess qlt45.svg
Chess klt45.svg
Chess qlt45.svg
Chess kdt45.svg
8
77
66
55
44
33
22
11
abcdefgh
After 135.Qfe8+

126...Kb3 127.Qf7+ Ka4 128.g8=Q Qg4+ 129.Kh6 Qh4+ 130.Kg7 Qg3+ 131.Kf8 Qd6+ 132.Qe7 Qh6+ 133.Qgg7 Qf4+ 134.Qgf7 Qb8+ 135.Qfe8++-[Exchanging queens.]

Botvinnik - Minev, Amsterdam (ol) 1954

Botvinnik vs. Minev, 1954
abcdefgh
8
Chessboard480.svg
Chess qlt45.svg
Chess pdt45.svg
Chess klt45.svg
Chess kdt45.svg
Chess plt45.svg
Chess qdt45.svg
8
77
66
55
44
33
22
11
abcdefgh
After 55...a1=Q
abcdefgh
8
Chessboard480.svg
Chess plt45.svg
Chess klt45.svg
Chess qlt45.svg
Chess kdt45.svg
Chess qdt45.svg
8
77
66
55
44
33
22
11
abcdefgh
After 91.Kc5

Ten years later, analyzing his adjourned game against Nikolay Minev, [27] Botvinnik improved the winning method. [28] But even then he erred two times (at 61 and 77). The position after 55...a1=Q is drawn. The game continued:

56.Qg4+ [26] Ka5 57.Qxe6 Qh8+ 58.Kg6 Qc3 59.g4 Qd2 60.g5 Qd4? [60...Ka4=] 61.Qf5+? [61.Kh7!+-] 61...Ka4= 62.Kh5 Qh8+ 63.Kg4 Qh1? [63...Ka3=] 64.Qf4++- Ka5 65.Qe5+ Ka4 66.g6 Qd1+ 67.Kg5 Qd8+ 68.Kf5 Qc8+ 69.Kf4 Qc1+ 70.Qe3 Qc7+ 71.Qe5 Qc1+ 72.Kf5 Qc8+ 73.Kg5 Qd8+ 74.Qf6 Qd5+ 75.Qf5! Qd8+ 76.Kh5 Qe8 77.Qf4+? [77.Kg4+-] 77...Ka5? [77...Ka3!=] 78.Qd2++- Ka4 79.Qd4+ Ka5 80.Kg5 Qe7+ 81.Kf5 Qf8+ 82.Ke4 Qh6 83.Qe5+ Ka4 84.g7 Qh1+ 85.Kd4 Qd1+ 86.Kc5 Qc1+ 87.Kd6 Qd2+ 88.Ke6 Qa2+ 89.Qd5 Qe2+ 90.Kd6 Qh2+ 91.Kc5 1–0

Now either a cross-check will force the exchange of queens, or else the pawn will promote.

Queen and two pawns versus a queen

This is usually a win for the two pawns, but victory can be difficult to achieve even in winning positions, as even the slightest inaccuracy may lead to perpetual check. Positions in which one of the pawns is vulnerable to attack may be drawn, but they are unusual. [29]

There are a number of other drawing exceptions, most notably with connected rook and knight pawns (a- & b-pawns, or g- & h-pawns) in which the defending king is ahead of the pawns. [30]

Lputian vs. Haroutjunian, 2001
abcdefgh
8
Chessboard480.svg
Chess kdt45.svg
Chess qdt45.svg
Chess plt45.svg
Chess plt45.svg
Chess qlt45.svg
Chess klt45.svg
8
77
66
55
44
33
22
11
abcdefgh
This position, after 86.h6, is a draw. [31]
abcdefgh
8
Chessboard480.svg
Chess kdt45.svg
Chess qdt45.svg
Chess xot45.svg
Chess oot45.svg
Chess plt45.svg
Chess plt45.svg
Chess qlt45.svg
Chess klt45.svg
8
77
66
55
44
33
22
11
abcdefgh
In this drawn position after White's 141.Qf4 (which intercepts check and counterthreatens the Black queen), Black blundered with ...Qf7, hoping for 142.Qxf7 stalemate. White instead played Qf6+, forcing an exchange of queens leading to a winning king and pawn endgame, and Black resigned.

An example is Smbat Lputian vs. Gevorg Harutjunyan, 2001. [32] The position after 86.h6 (the last pawn move of the game) is a draw. Play continued until move 142, with inaccuracies on both sides swinging the position from a draw to a forced win, and back again. Interestingly, Black could have claimed a draw by the fifty-move rule for the last several moves, including the final position in which he resigned, but he did not. [33]

Queen and two pawns versus a queen and pawn

Lomonosov Tablebases
abcdefgh
8
Chessboard480.svg
Chess pdt45.svg
Chess kdt45.svg
Chess qdt45.svg
Chess plt45.svg
Chess klt45.svg
Chess qlt45.svg
Chess plt45.svg
8
77
66
55
44
33
22
11
abcdefgh
White mates in 297.
Kasparov vs. the World
abcdefgh
8
Chessboard480.svg
Chess pdt45.svg
Chess klt45.svg
Chess pdt45.svg
Chess plt45.svg
Chess qlt45.svg
Chess kdt45.svg
Chess qdt45.svg
8
77
66
55
44
33
22
11
abcdefgh
Position after 54.Qf4.

Normally this is a win for the two pawns, but a surprising result of seven-piece Lomonosov tablebases is that the longest possible win require 594 plies. However, in Kasparov versus the World, Kasparov was the side with a single pawn, but won because his pawn was far more advanced than the world team's pawns, which also hindered perpetual checks by them.

See also

Related Research Articles

Stalemate is a situation in chess where the player whose turn it is to move is not in check and has no legal move. Stalemate results in a draw. During the endgame, stalemate is a resource that can enable the player with the inferior position to draw the game rather than lose. In more complex positions, stalemate is much rarer, usually taking the form of a swindle that succeeds only if the superior side is inattentive. Stalemate is also a common theme in endgame studies and other chess problems.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Ulf Andersson</span> Swedish chess player (born 1951)

Ulf Andersson is a leading Swedish chess player. FIDE awarded him the International Master title in 1970 and the Grandmaster title in 1972.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Kasparov versus the World</span> Game of chess

Kasparov versus the World was a game of chess played in 1999 over the Internet. It was a consultation game, in which a World Team of thousands decided each move for the black pieces by plurality vote, while Garry Kasparov conducted the white pieces by himself. More than 50,000 people from over 75 countries participated in the game.

In chess, a cross-check is a tactic in which a check is played in response to a check, especially when the original check is blocked by a piece that itself either delivers check or reveals a discovered check from another piece. Sometimes the term is extended to cover cases in which the king moves out of check and reveals a discovered check from another piece ; it does not generally apply to cases where the original checking piece is captured.

In chess, a fortress is an endgame drawing technique in which the side behind in material sets up a zone of protection that the opponent cannot penetrate. This might involve keeping the enemy king out of one's position, or a zone the enemy cannot force one out of. An elementary fortress is a theoretically drawn position with reduced material in which a passive defense will maintain the draw.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Edmar Mednis</span> American chess player

Edmar John Mednis was a Latvian-American chess player and writer of Latvian origin. He was awarded the title of Grandmaster by FIDE in 1980.

In chess, a blunder is a critically bad move or decision. A blunder severely worsens the player's situation by allowing a loss of material, checkmate, or anything similar. It is usually caused by some tactical oversight, whether due to time trouble, overconfidence, or carelessness. Although blunders are most common in beginner games, all human players make them, even at the world championship level. Creating opportunities for the opponent to blunder is an important skill in over-the-board chess.

In chess, a desperado is a piece that is either en prise or trapped, but captures an enemy piece before it is itself captured in order to compensate the loss a little, or is used as a sacrifice that will result in stalemate if it is captured. The former case can arise in a situation where both sides have hanging pieces, in which case these pieces are used to win material prior to being captured. A desperado in the latter case is usually a rook or a queen; such a piece is sometimes also called crazy or mad.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">World Chess Championship 2006</span> Chess tournament

The World Chess Championship 2006 was a match between Classical World Chess Champion Vladimir Kramnik, and FIDE World Chess Champion Veselin Topalov. The title of World Chess Champion had been split for 13 years. This match, played between September 23 and October 13, 2006, in Elista, Kalmykia, Russia, was to reunite the two World Chess Champion titles and produce an undisputed World Champion.

The chess endgame of a queen versus pawn is usually an easy win for the side with the queen. However, if the pawn has advanced to its seventh rank it has possibilities of reaching a draw, and there are some drawn positions with the pawn on the sixth rank. This endgame arises most often from a race of pawns to promote.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Swindle (chess)</span> Chess maneuver

In chess, a swindle is a ruse by which a player in a losing position tricks their opponent and thereby achieve a win or draw instead of the expected loss. It may also refer more generally to obtaining a win or draw from a clearly losing position. I. A. Horowitz and Fred Reinfeld distinguish among "traps", "pitfalls", and "swindles". In their terminology, a "trap" refers to a situation where players go wrong through their own efforts. In a "pitfall", the beneficiary of the pitfall plays an active role, creating a situation where a plausible move by the opponent will turn out badly. A "swindle" is a pitfall adopted by a player who has a clearly lost game. Horowitz and Reinfeld observe that swindles, "though ignored in virtually all chess books", "play an enormously important role in over-the-board chess, and decide the fate of countless games".

The opposite-colored bishops endgame is a chess endgame in which each side has a single bishop and the bishops reside on opposite-colored squares. Without other pieces besides pawns, these endings are widely known for their tendency to result in a draw. These are the most difficult endings in which to convert a small material advantage to a win. With additional pieces, the stronger side has more chances to win, but not as many as when bishops are on the same color.

A pawnless chess endgame is a chess endgame in which only a few pieces remain, and no pawns. The basic checkmates are types of pawnless endgames. Endgames without pawns do not occur very often in practice except for the basic checkmates of king and queen versus king, king and rook versus king, and queen versus rook. Other cases that occur occasionally are (1) a rook and minor piece versus a rook and (2) a rook versus a minor piece, especially if the minor piece is a bishop.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Botvinnik versus Capablanca, AVRO 1938</span>

On 22 November 1938, Mikhail Botvinnik defeated José Raúl Capablanca in one of the most famous games in chess history. The game was played in round 11 of the AVRO tournament in Rotterdam. Capablanca was a former World Chess Champion (1921-27), while Botvinnik would later become World Champion himself (1948-57).

<span class="mw-page-title-main">World Chess Championship 2016</span> Chess match between Magnus Carlsen and Sergey Karjakin

The World Chess Championship 2016 was a chess match between the reigning world champion Magnus Carlsen and the challenger Sergey Karjakin to determine the World Chess Champion. Carlsen had been world champion since 2013, while Karjakin qualified as challenger by winning the 2016 Candidates Tournament. The best-of-12 match, organized by FIDE and its commercial partner Agon, was played in New York City between 10 and 30 November 2016.

The 14th season of the Top Chess Engine Championship took place between 17 November 2018 and 24 February 2019. Stockfish was the defending champion, having defeated Komodo in the previous season's superfinal.

The 17th season of the Top Chess Engine Championship began on 2 January 2020 and ended on 22 April 2020. TCEC Season 16 3rd-place finisher Leela Chess Zero won the championship, defeating the defending champion Stockfish 52.5-47.5 in the superfinal.

The 20th season of the Top Chess Engine Championship began on 1 December 2020 and ended on 1 February 2021. The defending champion was Stockfish, which defeated Leela Chess Zero in the previous season's superfinal. The season 20 superfinal was a rematch between the same two engines. Stockfish once again came out ahead, winning by 6 games.

The staircase maneuver is a tactical motif that employs the idea of a series of checks, or alternation between pins and checks, to advance a queen, rook, or king along a diagonal via a series of stepped orthogonal moves.

On 3 December 2021, in the sixth game of the World Chess Championship 2021, the defending world champion Magnus Carlsen defeated the challenger Ian Nepomniachtchi in 136 moves, which made it the longest game in the history of the World Chess Championship. The game was played in 7 hours and 45 minutes, finishing after midnight local time, to take Carlsen to a 3½–2½ lead in the best-of-14-game match.

References

  1. Nunn 2007 , p. 148
  2. Müller & Lamprecht 2001 , p. 316
  3. Dvoretsky 2006 , p. 250
  4. Nunn 2007 , p. 148
  5. Averbakh, Henkin & Chekhover 1986 , pp. 29–30
  6. Nunn 2007 , p. 148
  7. Nunn 1995 , p. 265
  8. Nunn 2010 , p. 299
  9. Fine & Benko 2003 , p. 538
  10. Müller & Lamprecht 2001 , p. 316
  11. Nunn 2007 , pp. 148–153, 248–249
  12. Speelman, Tisdall & Wade 1993 , p. 7
  13. Mednis 1987 , pp. 126–127, 134
  14. Nunn 2010 , p. 299
  15. Mednis 1996 , p. 93
  16. Nunn 2007 , p. 150
  17. Mednis 1996 , pp. 115–117
  18. Thompson 1986 , p. 138
  19. Syzygy endgame tablebases 2020a
  20. Nunn 2007 , pp. 150–151
  21. Nunn 2007 , pp. 151–152
  22. Nunn 2007 , pp. 152–153
  23. See Kryukov (2008).
  24. Syzygy endgame tablebases 2020b
  25. "Mikhail Botvinnik vs Grigory Ravinsky". Chessgames.com . Chessgames Services LLC. Retrieved March 2, 2023.
  26. 1 2 Nunn's annotation convention is used
  27. "Mikhail Botvinnik vs Nikolay Minev". Chessgames.com . Chessgames Services LLC. Retrieved March 2, 2023.
  28. Dvoretsky 2006 , pp. 250–251
  29. Nunn 2010 , p. 307
  30. Nunn 2010 , p. 303
  31. Nunn 2010, p. 303
  32. Lputian vs. Harutjunyan, Yerevan (ch-ARM) 2001
  33. Nunn 2010 , pp. 303–307

Bibliography