Here's a game that I just finished that ended in a draw.  I was up a couple of pawns a few times, but they were disconnected and seemingly hung out to dry... but I had a pawn and a knight to his bishop in the end game and I couldn't figure out how to get the pawn to be promoted!

You could of done it eventual. But a Bishop is worth 3:2 so it's almost equal.

How about King b5 then King c5 then Knight c4 then Knight a5 then Knight c6 check (assuming his King is still at b8). 

1) Then if Bishop takes Knight, King takes Bishop and his King moves to a8 or c8 followed by pawn b7 check.  You might be able to promote and mate if carefull not to draw again. 

2) If instead black King a6, then pawn b7 check and pawn b8 (Queen promotion) check supported by Knight.

3) If black King a8, then King d6, King c7, pawn b7 check, black King a7, pawn b8 (Queen) with check and checkmate to follow.

I think this would work.  What do you think?

Regards, Duane

That position is drawn. I say this with as close to 100% confidence as one can  have. 

A) it looks completely obviously drawn to me: there's no way to prevent the B from taking the pawn when it advances. There's no way to block the diagonal with the N. The King would have to protect the N at c6, allowing the Black King to step up to b7. There are no mate threats.

B) Nalimov tablebases confirm it is drawn.

http://www.lokasoft.nl/tbweb.htm

Interesting. Checking with the tablebases shows that not only is your diagram drawn, but the diagram below is also a draw!

Thanks JG27Pyth !  That's kind of what I figured.  I guess I just need to analyze how to protect the two passed pawns that weren't linked earlier in the game.

If you had played 45 Ng3 it looks like a win:  45... Kf6 46 h5 Kg5 47 Kb6.  The point is that he cannot march up to get your knight with his king, as then one of your two passers will queen.

But it looks like in the game that 46 h5 might also have amounted to the same thing.  Again after 46... Kg5 you play 47 Kb6.

scrubadubdub44 wrote:

Thanks JG27Pyth !  That's kind of what I figured.  I guess I just need to analyze how to protect the two passed pawns that weren't linked earlier in the game.

Endgames are a wonderful difficult part of chess. I used to dread them, but they have their own beauty and actually, they're my favorite part of the game now (well, at least when I don't screw them up horribly). Studying endgame manuals is great but it can be very technical and dry. The most enjoyable endgame study for me has been just looking at annotated master games, and also trying to do endgame tactical puzzles. I rarely get them right, but I learn tricks from the answer.

Your specific position in the game above with the two passed pawns was surely winning, in more than one way I'd imagine, but to me it suggested a very common endgame plan: 

You have pawns on both sides of the board. Your opponent only has pawns on one side.  You have passed pawns that _demand_ defense.  So...

Tie up his king on one side of the board (effectively immobilizing him), preventing your passers from queening and then use your mobile King to attack the other side. The only catch is figuring out how to beat the Bishop... basically you use your passed pawns to get his king way out of position, and you attack the queenside with your King and N... something's got to give.

well a4 was a real duffer's move, it's clear u have no idea what pieces are which u annotate that you are attacking his bishop when you are clearly attacking his knight and you ignore your two kingside pawns you could have exploited to get a queen.  you phail.

chesshole wrote:

well a4 was a real duffer's move, it's clear u have no idea what pieces are which u annotate that you are attacking his bishop when you are clearly attacking his knight and you ignore your two kingside pawns you could have exploited to get a queen.  you phail.

I appreciate the complte lack of assistance, chesshole.  Thanks.

Care to add a game that we can all chose to not provide constructive comments on as well?

The annotation you talk about was clearly a mistake, as I refer to knights and bishops (in kind) correctly thoughout the game.  Sorry for being an imperfect human.  I guess we can't all be chessholes.

JG27Pyth wrote:

scrubadubdub44 wrote:

Thanks JG27Pyth !  That's kind of what I figured.  I guess I just need to analyze how to protect the two passed pawns that weren't linked earlier in the game.

Endgames are a wonderful difficult part of chess. I used to dread them, but they have their own beauty and actually, they're my favorite part of the game now (well, at least when I don't screw them up horribly). Studying endgame manuals is great but it can be very technical and dry. The most enjoyable endgame study for me has been just looking at annotated master games, and also trying to do endgame tactical puzzles. I rarely get them right, but I learn tricks from the answer.

Your specific position in the game above with the two passed pawns was surely winning, in more than one way I'd imagine, but to me it suggested a very common endgame plan: 

You have pawns on both sides of the board. Your opponent only has pawns on one side.  You have passed pawns that _demand_ defense.  So...

Tie up his king on one side of the board (effectively immobilizing him), preventing your passers from queening and then use your mobile King to attack the other side. The only catch is figuring out how to beat the Bishop... basically you use your passed pawns to get his king way out of position, and you attack the queenside with your King and N... something's got to give.

This is very helpful, thanks!