This article uses algebraic notation to describe chess moves.

In chess endgames with a bishop, a pawn that is a rook pawn may be the wrong rook pawn. With a single bishop, the result of a position may depend on whether or not the bishop controls the square on the chessboard on which the pawn would promote. Since a side's rook pawns promote on opposite-colored squares, one of them may be the "wrong rook pawn" (Burgess 2000:494). This situation also known as having the wrong-colored bishop or wrong bishop, i.e. the bishop is on the wrong colored squares in relation to the rook pawn (Rosen 2003:61). In many cases, the wrong rook pawn will only draw, when any other pawn would win. A fairly common defensive tactic is to get into one of these drawn endgames, often through a sacrifice.

In some endgames such as having a bishop and pawn versus a lone king (perhaps with pawns), the wrong rook pawn is the one whose promotion square is the opposite color as that on which the bishop resides, which makes the stronger side unable to win. This was known at least as early as 1623 because of an endgame study by Gioachino Greco (see below).

A less-common situation is when the defense has a bishop versus a rook and rook pawn; the wrong rook pawn is the one that promotes on the square not controlled by the bishop because the defending king and bishop can form a blockade in the corner (on the pawn's promotion square) and draw the game. (This is also called the safe corner for the defending king.)

Contents 1 Bishop and pawn 1.1 Defending king in front of pawn 1.2 Examples from games 1.2.1 Goglidze versus Kasparian 1.2.2 Fischer versus Taimanov 1.2.3 Karpov versus Kasparov 1.2.4 Korchnoi versus Karpov 1.3 An exception 2 Opposite-colored bishops 2.1 Example from game 3 Rook and rook pawn versus bishop 3.1 Example from game 4 In studies 4.1 Rauzer 4.2 Greco 5 See also 6 Notes 7 References 8 Further reading

[edit] Bishop and pawn

In this type of endgame, the wrong rook pawn is the one whose queening square is the opposite color as that on which the bishop resides. Many such positions are drawn because of a fortress if the defending king can get to the corner in front of the pawn, see the diagram. With the bishop not able to control the a8 square, the black king cannot be forced away from the corner, so the pawn will not be able to promote (Müller & Lamprecht 2001:96-100). This is the basic type of position for most of these endgames (Mednis 1987:64).

[edit] Defending king in front of pawn

In a king and pawn versus king endgame with a rook pawn, the defending king only has to get in front of the pawn to draw the game. In contrast, in the endgame with a bishop and the wrong rook pawn, getting the defending king in front of the pawn will not necessarily draw. In this position from Edmar Mednis, White wins if it is his move

1. Kg8! Kg5

2. Kg7

and the pawn promotes. Black to move draws by 1... Kh7! followed by 2... Kh8. The defending king must be in the corner or be next to it to be sure of a draw (Mednis 1987:64–65).

[edit] Examples from games

[edit] Goglidze versus Kasparian

In this position from a 1929 game between Viktor Arsentievich Goglidze and Genrikh Kasparian, Black uses the tactic of offering the sacrifice of his bishop for the pawn on the e file to leave White with the wrong rook pawn:

1... Bg4+!

and the game was drawn twelve moves later. The bishop will remain on the c8 to h3 diagonal and sacrifice itself for the pawn if it advances to e6. (Note that 1... Bb3+ does not work because of 2. Ke7 Bxf7 3. h6+!) (van Perlo 2006:356).

[edit] Fischer versus Taimanov

In this game from the 1971 World Chess Championship Candidate's Match, the second game between Bobby Fischer and Mark Taimanov, Black could have drawn the game because of the wrong rook pawn. One way is:

81... Nd3!

82. h4 Nf4

83. Kf5 Kd6!

84. Kxf4 Ke7

½-½

In the actual game,^[1] Black made an incorrect move (81... Ke4??) and lost because a knight has a hard time defending against rook pawns (Dvoretsky 2006:82-84), (Benko 2007:213). (Fischer went on to win the match 6-0 and advance to the next round, and subsequently became World Champion.)

[edit] Karpov versus Kasparov

Garry Kasparov used sacrifices to leave Anatoly Karpov with the wrong rook pawn to save the twentieth game of their 1985 World Championship, after a long endgame.^[2] In this position, Black sacrificed two pawns for one (the ones on f5 and g6 for the one on a4):

82... Bb3!

83. Be8 Ke7

84. Bxg6 Bxa4

85. Bxf5 Kf6

½-½

A draw was agreed because the black bishop can stop the advance of the pawn on the f-file, sacrificing itself if necessary, leaving White with the wrong rook pawn (the one on the h file) (Mednis 1990:73-74), (Kasparov 2008:385). (Kasparov went on to win the match 13-11 and became World Champion for the first time.)

[edit] Korchnoi versus Karpov

In this game^[3] from the 1978 World Championship between Victor Korchnoi and Anatoly Karpov, White's pawn is the wrong rook pawn. White went on to capture the black b-pawn on move 107, but was unable to force the black king far enough away from the a8 square to get to a winning position. The game ended in an intentional stalemate on move 124 (see Stalemate#Korchnoi-Karpov for the final position). Some commentators thought that Korchnoi might have missed a win in this endgame, but Karpov defended well and White never had a theoretically won position. (However, Korchnoi did miss a win earlier in the game.) Black's pawn on b5 is actually a liability. If the black king is forced into a position where he cannot move, black would have to move the pawn and White would win the game. As of 2008, this is the longest game of a world championship (Griffiths 1992:43-46), (Kasparov 2006:112-20). (Karpov retained his title by a score of six wins to five.)

[edit] An exception

In this position White wins because he is able to force the exchange of pawns to get his pawn on the b-file.

1. Be3 Kb8

2. Bd4 Ka8

3. Kc8

and checkmate in two more moves. If Black did not have his rook pawn, he could draw by 3... b5 (Griffiths 1976:93).

[edit] Opposite-colored bishops

Usually when each side has a bishop and they are on opposite-colored squares and one side has two widely-separated pawns, the stronger side wins. However, if one of the pawns is the wrong rook pawn and the defending king is blocking it, the position is usually a draw because the defending bishop can stop the other pawn. If the defending bishop is sacrificed for the other pawn, the resulting position is a draw like the ones above (Fine & Benko 2003:192).

With opposite-colored bishops, two connected pawns win if they safely reach the sixth rank, except when one is the wrong rook pawn, i.e. the defending bishop is on the long diagonal that includes the square on which the rook pawn would promote (de la Villa 2008:106).

[edit] Example from game

in this game between FIDE Master Edgar Walther and Bobby Fischer,^[4] White has just made a bad move (54. a4?; 54. b4! wins). Black's defensive plan is to sacrifice his bishop for the two queenside pawns, leaving White with the wrong rook pawn (the h-pawn) for his bishop. The game was drawn nine moves later (Fischer 2008:67), (Dvoretsky 2006:94).

[edit] Rook and rook pawn versus bishop

The wrong rook pawn may come up in other situations, such as this position with a rook and rook pawn versus a bishop. This time the bishop is defending against the rook pawn. If the pawn had not yet reached the fifth rank, White would win. Play might continue:

1. Rb7 Bc2

2. Kg5 Bd3

3. Kh6 Kg8!

4. Rg7+ Kf8!! (4... Kh8?? loses)

½-½

White cannot win because his king cannot move to the h5 square. If the bishop were on the other colored squares, White would win (Fine & Benko 2003:468-72).

If the defending king is in the corner controlled by his bishop then the pawn can be sacrificed at the right moment to get to a winning rook versus bishop position. If the defending king is in the corner opposite his bishop's color, sacrificing the pawn does not work because the defender easily forms a fortress in the corner (Müller & Lamprecht 2001:271–72). This is also referred to as the defending king being in the "safe" corner, since with the king in the corner with the bishop next to it, he is safe from the rook.

[edit] Example from game

In this position from a game between future World Champion Max Euwe and Karel Hromádka, Black should win but he errs by advancing his pawn too soon.^[5] Play continued:

1... h4?? (Black wins easily after 1... Kh3!)

2. Bd4 Kh3? (Black still could have won here with 2... Re2!, but it is complicated.)

3. Be5 Rg2+

4. Kf1! ½-½ (Dvoretsky 2006:237).

[edit] In studies

[edit] Rauzer

In this 1928 endgame study by Vsevolod Rauzer, White to move can force a win if the black king is on or below the line indicated. Similar positions were studied by Josef Kling and Bernhard Horwitz in 1851 and by Johann Berger in 1921. A very similar position occurred in the Korchnoi-Karpov game above (Griffiths 1992:44-45), (Kasparov 2006:120).

[edit] Greco

The theme is used in this 1623 composition by Gioachino Greco. Black draws:

1...Ra1+

2. Rf1 Rxf1+

3. Kxf1 Bh3!

and Black will sacrifice his bishop for the g-pawn or transform it into an h-pawn after 4. gxh3 (Averbakh 1996:85).

[edit] See also

• Chess endgame
• Wrong bishop
• Opposite-colored bishops endgame

[edit] Notes

[edit] References

• Averbakh, Yuri (1996), Chess Middlegames: Essential Knowledge, Cadogan, ISBN 1-85744-125-7 

• Benko, Pal (2007), Pal Benko's Endgame Laboratory, Ishi Press, ISBN 0-923891-88-9 

• Burgess, Graham (2000), The Mammoth Book of Chess (2nd ed.), Carroll & Graf, ISBN 978-0-7867-0725-6 

• de la Villa, Jesús (2008), 100 Endgames You Must Know, New in Chess, ISBN 978-90-5691-244-4 

• Dvoretsky, Mark (2006), Dvoretsky's Endgame Manual (second ed.), Russell Enterprises, ISBN 1-888690-28-3 

• Fine, Reuben; Benko, Pal (2003), Basic Chess Endings (1941) (second ed.), McKay, ISBN 0-8129-3493-8 
• Fischer, Bobby (2008), My 60 Memorable Games (1969), Batsford, ISBN 978-1-906388-30-0 
• Griffiths, P.C. (1976), The Endgame: in modern theory and practice, G. Bell & Sons, ISBN 0-7135-1953-3 
• Griffiths, Peter (1992), Exploring the Endgame, American Chess Promotions, ISBN 0-939298-83-X 

• Kasparov, Garry (2006), My Great Predecessors, part V, Everyman Chess, ISBN 1-85744-404-3 

• Kasparov, Garry (2008), Modern Chess: Part 2, Kasparov vs Karpov 1975-1985, ISBN 978-1-85744-433-9 

• Mednis, Edmar (1987), Questions and Answers on Practical Endgame Play, Chess Enterprises, ISBN 0-931462-69-X 

• Mednis, Edmar (1990), Practical Bishop Endings, Chess Enterprises, ISBN 0-945470-04-5 

• Müller, Karsten; Lamprecht, Frank (2001), Fundamental Chess Endings, Gambit Publications, ISBN 1-901983-53-6 

• van Perlo, Gerardus C. (2006), Van Perlo's Endgame Tactics, New In Chess, ISBN 978-90-5691-168-3 

• Rosen, Bernd (2003), Chess Endgame Training, Gambit Publications, ISBN 978-1-904600-01-5 

[edit] Further reading

• Nunn, John (2009), Understanding Chess Endgames, Gambit Publications, pp. 64-65, ISBN 978-1-906454-11-1