Online Guide to Progressive Chess

VII. Endgame Theory


Aren't progressive chess endings simple?
What is a parity position?
What material is sufficient to defeat a lone king?
What is a fortress?
What is a frog tongue?
What are some commonly occurring endgames?

Back to the table of contents.
Onward to the opening theory page.

Aren't progressive chess endings simple?

Progressive chess endings are, for the most part, trivial. When one side has 11, 13, or 15 moves, if there is a winning strategy, it is usually rather obvious. The only endgames that are really interesting are those where both sides have a defensive array of pieces and one side (at least) has theoretically promotable pawns (if the path were cleared for them). Pawnless endgame theory is also easy to codify, as one side can either hold off the other or not. In general, the number of moves is irrelevant to "static" endings, and, often, in the positions below, it will be assumed that either side has an infinite number of moves.

What is a parity position?

Before examining any endings, it is necessary to understand the concept of a parity position. A parity position, simply put, is one in which the theoretical assessment depends on whether or not one side has to make an even or odd number of moves. Often, a position is drawn if one side can shuffle back and forth between two squares, ending on the same position in which he started. Given the same position, however, the white player would be forced to end his series on a DIFFERENT square. In a sense, parity positions are the zugzwangs of progressive chess. Given adequate room to maneuver, neither side ever experiences zugzwang in progressive chess; but when restricted to only one legal move consisting of moving back and forth between two squares, white often finds himself in zugzwang, unable to remain in the "safe" position.

The parity position with the fewest number of pieces is the following:









Black to play in this position can hold easily by shuffling back and forth between g8 and h7, ending finally on g8. If white had to defend this position, however, he would LOSE, because his king would be forced to end on h7.

Now you may be thinking that parity positions are unusual animals that only occur once in a blue moon. However, the theoretical assessment of many positions is dependent on which color is defending the position! In fact, as we shall soon see, king, bishop, and knight against king is a parity position! Black can always force mate with bishop and knight, whereas white cannot!

What material is sufficient to defeat a lone king?

The following material is ALWAYS sufficient to force mate of a lone king:

The following material is NEVER sufficient to force mate of a lone king:

The following material is, FOR BLACK ONLY, sufficient to force mate of white's lone king:

Each of these two endgames deserves special coverage. Unlike in regular chess, where having to mate with two knights or a bishop and a knight are extremely infrequent events, in progressive chess, one side often eats all the enemy pawns and leaves his opponent with just a bishop and a knight or two knights. So it is worth understanding these two endings in detail. Let us follow the checkmating path for black with the white king placed in the center of the board (d5).

K+B+N versus K

The author would like to acknowledge Russell Linnemann, who did all the work related to the theory of this endgame and the K+2N vs. K ending.

Scenario 1: The King in the Center (d4/e4/d5/e5)

















In the first stage, the white king is merely forced out of the center 4 squares (there are numerous other ways to do this). Note that if the king had begun on d4 or e5 (assuming the bishop were somewhere else), the same setup would now force the king into the second layer.

Scenario 2: The King in the Second Layer (c4/c5/d3/d6/e3/e6/f4/f5)

















In this position, the king is forced onto one of the corner squares of the second layer (c3/c6/f3/f6) or to the outer layer. Alternatively, the king could have gone to a dark square (e.g. c5), but the same exact setup would drive the king to f3, c6, or the outer layers.

We examine what happens if the king tries to stay in the second layer (i.e. goes to c3, c6, f3, or f6) in scenario 3. We examine the consequences of the king going to the squares in the third layer of the same color as the bishop in scenario 5. Finally, we examine the consequences of the king going to the squares in the third layer of the opposite color as the bishop in scenario 6. Because scenario 6 represents a parity position, this is the only way for black to draw the K+B+N v. K ending.

Scenario 3: The King in the Second Layer Corner (c3/c6/f3/f6)

















After this check, the king is forced into the third layer. Notice how the bishop on e7 covers d8 and a3 and keeps the enemy king imprisoned. Clearly, the king cannot go to the back row or to the corner, else he will be trivially mated. This leaves only the squares b6 (c7) and b7 to be examined (see scenario 4).

The second layer corner square of the same color as the bishop is also a trivial win (e.g. W: Kc3, B: Ke3, Ba5, Nb6).

Scenario 4: The King in the Third Layer Corner (b2/b3/b6/b7/c2/c7/f2/f7/g2/g3/g6/g7)

















Now the king is forced onto the back rank where it is easily mated. Note that putting the king on b7 would not change the position.

Scenario 5: The King in the Third Layer Center, Same Color as Bishop (b4/d2/e7/g5)

















Here the king is forced onto one of the squares we have already examined and determined to be a win (see scenario 4).

Scenario 6: Parity Position -- The King in the Third Layer Center, Opposite Color as Bishop (b5/d7/e2/g4)

















Finally, we reach the parity position--the key to the whole ending of B+N. The lone king has only two squares to shuffle between (e1 and e2). If black plays the lone king, he can remain safely on the same square. White, however, is forced to walk onto the back row and be mated. There is no checking configuration that can prevent the lone king from escaping to another safe square, i.e. there is simply no way for white to make progress from this position. The only way to win is for black to zugzwang a white king off of the safe square.

The third layer center squares of the same color as the bishop could also be won by zugzwang (W: Kd2, B: Kb2 Bf2 Nf4).

K+2N versus K

The theory for king and two knights against king is much the same. It is easy to force the enemy king out of the center of the board, but only black can zugzwang white onto the back rank.

Scenario 1: Forcing the King out of the Center Two Layers

























The above three diagrams show how to force the king out of the center two layers and into the outer two layers of the board.

Scenario 2: Parity Positions

























The above three diagrams show the key parity positions for the K+2N versus K ending. Only black can make progress from these positions, forcing white onto the back rank or into the corner. It is worth nothing the "safe" nature of the squares a2, a7, b1, b8, g1, g8, h2, and h7, which are the 8 squares in the outermost layer on which there is no mating configuration.

Scenario 3: Odds and Ends

























Finally, we show the two key mating configurations plus the method for forcing the king out of the corner of the next to outermost layer. Even from b2/b7/g2/g7, white could still not force checkmate of a black king, since the black king could simply sit on one of the "safe" squares (a2/a7/etc).

Now suppose one side has a pawn or two? The assessment of most of these positions is fairly obvious. We can make the following generalizations about the lone king:

This concludes our discussion of endgames where one side only has a king. Now let's look at some more complicated positions.

What is a fortress?

What is a frog tongue?

What are some commonly occurring endgames?


By now, you are ready to learn about opening theory.
Or return to the table of contents page.