Example
| Euwe and Hooper, 1959
|
In chess and other chess-like games, a tempo is a "turn" or single move (a half-move or ply made either by White or Black). When a player achieves a desired result in one fewer move, the player is said to "gain a tempo"; conversely, when a player takes one more move than necessary, the player is said to "lose a tempo". Similarly, when a player forces their opponent to make moves not according to their initial plan, one is said to "gain tempo" because the opponent is wasting moves. A move that gains a tempo is often called "a move with tempo".
A simple example of losing a tempo may be moving a rook from the h1-square to h5 and from there to h8 in the first diagram; simply moving from h1 to h8 would have achieved the same result with a tempo to spare. However, such maneuvers do not always lose a tempo—the rook on h5 may make some threat which needs to be responded to. In this case, since both players have "lost" a tempo, the net result in terms of time is nil, but the change brought about in the position may favor one player more than the other.
a | b | c | d | e | f | g | h | ||
8 | 8 | ||||||||
7 | 7 | ||||||||
6 | 6 | ||||||||
5 | 5 | ||||||||
4 | 4 | ||||||||
3 | 3 | ||||||||
2 | 2 | ||||||||
1 | 1 | ||||||||
a | b | c | d | e | f | g | h |
Gaining tempo may be achieved, for example, by developing a piece while delivering check, though here, too, if the check can be countered by the development of a piece, the net result may be nil. If the check can be blocked by a useful pawn move which also drives the checking piece away, the check may even lose a tempo.
In general, making moves with gain of tempo is desirable. A player is said to have the initiative if they are able to keep making moves which force their opponent to respond in a particular way or limit their responses. The player with the initiative has greater choice of moves and can to some extent control the direction the game takes, though this advantage is only relative, and may not be worth very much (having a slight initiative when a rook down in material, for example, may be worthless).
A move that comes "with a tempo on a piece" is a move that gains a tempo by attacking that piece. For example, in the Scandinavian Defense opening, after 1.e4 d5 2.exd5 Qxd5, White's 3.Nc3 comes "with a tempo on the queen": the knight attacks Black's queen, forcing it to move again, and White gains a tempo. A similar move gains a tempo in the Center Game.
In some endgame situations, a player must actually lose a tempo to make progress. For example, when the two kings stand in opposition (a form of zugzwang), the player to move is often at a disadvantage because he must move. The player to move may be able to triangulate in order to lose a tempo and return to the same position but with the opponent to move (and put him in zugzwang). Kings, queens, bishops, and rooks can lose a tempo; a knight cannot. [2]
Timofeev vs. Inarkiev, 2008
| Timofeev vs. Inarkiev, analysis
|
In the position from Artyom Timofeev–Ernesto Inarkiev, 2008, [3] [4] Black resigned because White will win with a tempo move. (Timofeev won the 2008 Moscow Open with this game.) White is threatening 118.Rh8+. If Black moves his king on move 117, White wins the bishop with 118.Rh8+, which results in a position which has an elementary checkmate. If Black moves 117...Bh5 then 118.Rh8 and Black is in zugzwang, and loses. So Black must move 117...Be2 to avoid immediately getting into a lost position. But then will come 118.Rh8+ Bh5 and now White makes a tempo move with 119.Rh7 (or 119.Rh6), maintaining the pin on the bishop, making it Black's turn to move, and Black must lose the bishop.
a | b | c | d | e | f | g | h | ||
8 | 8 | ||||||||
7 | 7 | ||||||||
6 | 6 | ||||||||
5 | 5 | ||||||||
4 | 4 | ||||||||
3 | 3 | ||||||||
2 | 2 | ||||||||
1 | 1 | ||||||||
a | b | c | d | e | f | g | h |
A spare tempo in an endgame arises when a player has a pawn move that does not essentially change the position but that loses a tempo to put the opponent in zugzwang. In this example, if only the queenside pieces were considered, it would be an instance of full-point reciprocal zugzwang – the player to move would lose. In the full position, White has two spare tempi (f2–f3 and h2–h3) whereas Black has only one (...f7–f6), so White has a spare tempo. By using these moves he can force Black into a fatal zugzwang:
and any move Black makes will lose.
If the black pawn had been on h7 instead of h6, White and Black would have an equal number of spare tempi, so the player to move would lose. [5]
a | b | c | d | e | f | g | h | ||
8 | 8 | ||||||||
7 | 7 | ||||||||
6 | 6 | ||||||||
5 | 5 | ||||||||
4 | 4 | ||||||||
3 | 3 | ||||||||
2 | 2 | ||||||||
1 | 1 | ||||||||
a | b | c | d | e | f | g | h |
A pawn may have a reserve tempo, mainly in endgames involving only kings and pawns. This is especially true of a pawn on the second rank , where it has the option of moving one or two squares. Pawn moves held in reserve may be used to win a game.
In this position from a 1986 game between John Nunn and Klaus Bischoff, [6] Black resigned because he must lose his pawn on the d- file because White has a reserve tempo with his a-pawn. For example, after
or
Black must now abandon the d5-pawn (or first move and lose his pawn on f7). White is able to place Black in zugzwang because he has the option of moving the a2-pawn either one or two squares.
Chess strategy is the aspect of chess play concerned with evaluation of chess positions and setting goals and long-term plans for future play. While evaluating a position strategically, a player must take into account such factors as the relative value of the pieces on the board, pawn structure, king safety, position of pieces, and control of key squares and groups of squares. Chess strategy is distinguished from chess tactics, which is the aspect of play concerned with the move-by-move setting up of threats and defenses. Some authors distinguish static strategic imbalances, which tend to persist for many moves, from dynamic imbalances, which are temporary. This distinction affects the immediacy with which a sought-after plan should take effect. Until players reach the skill level of "master", chess tactics tend to ultimately decide the outcomes of games more often than strategy. Many chess coaches thus emphasize the study of tactics as the most efficient way to improve one's results in serious chess play.
In chess and other similar games, the endgame is the stage of the game when few pieces are left on the board.
This glossary of chess explains commonly used terms in chess, in alphabetical order. Some of these terms have their own pages, like fork and pin. For a list of unorthodox chess pieces, see Fairy chess piece; for a list of terms specific to chess problems, see Glossary of chess problems; for a list of named opening lines, see List of chess openings; for a list of chess-related games, see List of chess variants; for a list of terms general to board games, see Glossary of board games.
Zugzwang is a situation found in chess and other turn-based games wherein one player is put at a disadvantage because of their obligation to make a move; a player is said to be "in zugzwang" when any legal move will worsen their position.
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.
In chess, a tactic is a sequence of moves that each makes one or more immediate threats – a check, a material threat, a checkmating sequence threat, or the threat of another tactic – that culminates in the opponent's being unable to respond to all of the threats without making some kind of concession. Most often, the immediate benefit takes the form of a material advantage or mating attack; however, some tactics are used for defensive purposes and can salvage material that would otherwise be lost, or to induce stalemate in an otherwise lost position.
The two knights endgame is a chess endgame with a king and two knights versus a king. In contrast to a king and two bishops, or a bishop and a knight, a king and two knights cannot force checkmate against a lone king. Although there are checkmate positions, a king and two knights cannot force them against proper, relatively easy defense.
Triangulation is a tactic used in chess to put one's opponent in zugzwang. Triangulation is also called losing a tempo or losing a move.
The Philidor position is a chess endgame involving a drawing technique for the defending side in the rook and pawn versus rook endgame. This technique is known as the third-rank defense due to the positioning of the defending rook. It was analyzed by François-André Danican Philidor in 1777. Many rook and pawn versus rook endgames reach either the drawn Philidor position or the winning Lucena position. The defending side should try to reach the Philidor position; the attacking side should try to reach the Lucena position. Said grandmaster Jesús de la Villa, "[The Lucena and Philidor positions] are the most important positions in this type of endgame [...] and in endgame theory."
The Tarrasch rule is a general principle that applies in the majority of chess middlegames and endgames. Siegbert Tarrasch (1862–1934) stated the "rule" that rooks should be placed behind passed pawns – either the player's or the opponent's. The idea behind the guideline is that (1) if a player's rook is behind his passed pawn, the rook protects it as it advances, and (2) if it is behind an opponent's passed pawn, the pawn cannot advance unless it is protected along its way.
The chess endgame with a king and a pawn versus a king is one of the most important and fundamental endgames, other than the basic checkmates. It is an important endgame for chess players to master, since most other endgames have the potential of reducing to this type of endgame via exchanges of pieces. Players need to be able to determine quickly whether a given position is a win or a draw, and to know the technique for playing it. The crux of this endgame is whether or not the pawn can be promoted, so checkmate can be forced.
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.
The rook and pawn versus rook endgame is a fundamentally important, widely studied chess endgame. Precise play is usually required in these positions. With optimal play, some complicated wins require sixty moves to either checkmate, capture the defending rook, or successfully promote the pawn. In some cases, thirty-five moves are required to advance the pawn once.
In chess, opposition is a situation in which two kings are two squares apart on the same rank or file. Since kings cannot move adjacent to each other, each king prevents the other's advance, creating a mutual blockade. In this situation, the player not having to move is said to have the opposition. It is a special type of zugzwang and most often occurs in endgames with only kings and pawns. The side with the move may have to move their king away, potentially allowing the opposing king access to important squares. Taking the opposition is a means to an end, normally to force the opponent's king to move to a weaker position, and is not always the best thing to do.
In chess, a swindle is a ruse by which players in a losing position trick 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.
In chess, particularly in endgames, a key square is a square such that if a player's king can occupy it, he can force some gain such as the promotion of a pawn or the capture of an opponent's pawn. Key squares are useful mostly in endgames involving only kings and pawns. In the king and pawn versus king endgame, the key squares depend on the position of the pawn and are easy to determine. Some more complex positions have easily determined key squares while other positions have harder-to-determine key squares. Some positions have key squares for both White and Black.
The rook and bishop versus rook endgame is a chess endgame where one player has just a king, a rook, and a bishop, and the other player has just a king and a rook. This combination of material is one of the most common pawnless chess endgames. It is generally a theoretical draw, but the rook and bishop have good winning chances in practice because the defense is difficult. Ulf Andersson won the position twice within a year, once against a grandmaster and once against a candidate master; and grandmaster Keith Arkell has won it 18 times out of 18. In positions that have a forced win, up to 59 moves are required. Tony Kosten has seen the endgame many times in master games, with the stronger side almost always winning. Pal Benko called this the "headache ending."
The following outline is provided as an overview of and topical guide to chess:
Bibliography