Excerpt from the chess textbook I'm writing
Sort:
[COMMENT DELETED]
Mar 14, 2014
0
#2
Im not fully understanding what you are asking. But along with Primary endings there could be endings to avoid, like stepping 'land mines' lol. Ie. having a king and a knight or king and a bishop against a king can not lead to a win even though they are a full peice ahead. But the two you already have seem like the only primary ones, unless you want to get into all endgames that are checkmateable.
ah.. yes. There is the start of a working definition.. the primary endings are the ones where checkmate can be produced. Nice.
That adds quite a few pawnless endings to the mix, like bishop + knight and Bishop+Bishop. Although those are so obscure that they will never actually be reached in practice. Rook vs queen. Rook vs knight. Rook vs bishop. hmm.. the list gets big fast.
Would you settle for a footnote about a large black bird?
It's on the second draft. I've now spent close to a year on it, and I'm nearly done.. unfortunately one good deed deserves 2 others and now the project has expanded into writing a workbook and student guide as well as the teacher edition.
Very interesting that you are writing this and you seem to be very gifted with words! My mentor has just started working on end game with me. Thus far, we've gone over the two you mention, king and queen versus king and king and rook versus king. We've also done the simpler two rooks versus king, and two bishops versus king (very tricky! He wasn't going to teach me that but I asked).
As far as secondary, we've gone over the principle of the king and pawn versus king where we discussed opposition and the "box".
I'm thinking you might be right regarding those two main primary stones. Just as you've mentioned in post #3, the others certainly don't seem to occur as often.
Best of luck in completing your project!
