Specific endgame questions.

Hello,

I played a game earlier today which ended in a draw. There are certain strategical decisions that I made during the endgame, I wondered if they were bad, good or indifferent. I am also interested in your approach, what you would have done - also, which pieces you would of favoured, Whites or Blacks.

If you play through the moves I put my questions and ideas in the little box. Thanks in advance.

*edit* I got my king and queen side mixed up. :)

good endgame but i would not want to simplify at all  because you did have a material disadvantage, and it should be a rule of thumb not to simplify when down material.

KFC

Ha i just looked at your rating and your really higher than me i guess you should be giving me advice and not the other way around.  lol

On move 16, I think Kf4 is very good for white. It basically swarms your king. Also, his rook was totally in the wrong position at move 16. If, several moves ago when it wasn't stuck defending that passed pawn yet, he had manuevered it around behind your king and took those pawns, he probably would've won the game.

woodencardboard

Yes, 16.Kf4 does look good for white. However, where does white then do. The black pawn could go to g2 - then there is the possibility of rook takes pawn, bishop takes rook, king takes bishop, but the resulting position would also be very drawish.

I agree that the white rook played passive moves. Especially near the beginning - random checks that don't seem to achieve much. I think on move 7, this would have been an opportunity to get the rook to the 8th rank.

From the very staring position, do you think that blacks game was over, or do you think that occured when I offered the rook exchange?

kungfoodchef

Insight comes from everywhere, so your views are as good as any. Infact this is one of the things that really interested me about this game was that I broke the rule of thumb - traded down.

I think that being a good player is about knowing when to break the rules (and 1000 other things too). I normally cling onto rules of thumb for dear life. However, on this occasion I choose to be brave.

 I felt that it would be easier for white to coordinate his two rooks than for me to coordinate my bishop and rook, judging by the layout of the board. I really have no idea if this was right or wrong. I also do not know if after doing so. I essentially killed off my game and actually got lucky squeezing the draw.

theknightman

thanks for the positive post and contribution.

 tonydal

Yes, your right, I was going for the aggressive approach and probably thought that I was in for a chance of a win - only if my opponent let me in. Your right that this was probably a mistake. The reason I went for aggression was to try and force white to play his rook in a passive manner.

At the begining, when I went to get the rooks off the board, was this a mistake in your opintion? Also, should I of stayed intrenched in my own half and let my opponenent overextend whilst setting up a good defence? Would this of been the safest way to obtain the draw, was I too risky?

Sorry for all the questions. I'm interested to know because I'd probably do the exact same thing tomorrow unless I find out that my thinking was flawed :)

Thanks for the input.

Nice endgame but ... your mistake is that you let the king stuck in a corner, like what you said.

not bad cause you were disadvantage of material in that endgame! so NICE GAME

I think you did the best with your opportunities. The queenside pawns are firm, so the best bet was the kingside expansion. Unfortunately the position just didn't have anything in it for you to squeeze out. For what was available, it was well played.

anhhuyalex and donngerard,thanks for taking an interest and your contributions.

Chessroshi, yes, it would seem that I was actually a wee bit lucky to get the draw, now that I've read others contributions. White had an opportunity to activate the rook and instead worried about the pawn threat too much.

Matalino, thanks for your time and contribution. Yes, that's essentially the problem with the one bishop, can only play on half the board. It would seem that white was perhaps correct to trade down when I offered the rook - but did not follow through with the plan and activate his rook. This inconsistency on his part cost him the whole point. Well, this is what I now conclude since reading others contributions. So, I now think that I got a draw from a lost position :)

I like this line that you gave.

After 11.Ke3 Kg5, White should have tried 12.Rd1!! g6 13.hxg6 cxg6 14.Rd8 intending 15. Rb8 b4 16.Ra8 winning the a pawn.

Even though I had done my best to protect the 7th rank, there is no possible way I could have stopped the rook penetrating the 8th. The only way I could have tried to match this threats is if I had entrenched myself in my own half and held onto my rook.

The more I look at this, the more I think I would of gone about things differently. This is all good and exactly what I had hoped to gain form this post.

Thanks for your analysis and time.

 boston12,

I'm glad that you've enjoyed this post. The game also got into my head :) Yes, you've hit the nail on the head. I did actually go about this game in a rather incorrect manner. With hindsight it now seems that that I should not have even got a draw out of this.

What's good about this post, and the responses, is that I wanted to question the approach I took towards dealing with this position. It's easy to have an approach, or a way of thinking, that is never challenged. The decisions I made in this game would be the same that I made in future games, however, with the feedback I've received I will be more critical towards the choices that I make.

Thanks for your post.