Position / endgame analysis

So you probably know this is now my social account and I might still do some managing the club from time to time here and thus I'm creating this forum so everyone can share interesting positions from their games for all of us to analyse and find the correct ideas that are not find-able by an individual during a speed game.

Please respect the rules of the club in this forum. Other than that, have fun!

So I will leave this question here so that you can choose what you prefer. React with  I can decide.

Should I create a form input for this and a database view linked directly in the description? This would allow the position to be categorized, additional information could be added and the view would be more organized. On the other hand, many might want to keep it simple with a forum and that's totally understandable or might not have access to websites like airtable for a variety of reasons. For now we will be using the forum but if a majority of active club members decides to move I will proceed to create the database I described here. I won't vote as I'm personally not an active user due to reasons I have previously stated on my main account's blog and already mentioned in this club.

Nice idea, thanks! Voted

In the situation bellow, what do you think is the best idea (mostly for yellow) and why ?
If yellow (and green) play corectly, green can get first and yellow second but the way for yellow to get second is in each cases complex and is possible only if he's patient and both players play as this situation requires.

so I think d3+ 4xd3+ Ke1 Kb2 Kd1 Ka3 Kc1 Kb4 Kb2 Kc5 c2 d3 Bg4 Kd4 Kb1 Ke3 Nh1 Ke2 Kb2 d1=R BxR KxB then run to g1 Ng3 h1 NxR KxN green promotes and trades rook for king because that's the quickest way to win.

ups, it was to yellow to play lol, I'll check what you've wroten

Ke2 put yellow in check because green's bishop is on g4

Else that would work but with green's king on top and yellow far away, give the rook isn't the most fast I guess

I would give my opinion later, I want to see if some other people will give their own

so what? it's not like it's in green's interest to take

Yep, the only "problem" with this way is that I think yellow haves more chances to get third than second, it's only depending of green's choice.

isn't the only way that green wins is if yellow makes two rooks and then sacks them on green

and yellow is definitely not getting second unless he manages to take either all of green's pieces or let green promote, take some of his pieces, then take a rook

that's just what the math is telling me from being an ffa player, no idea what strategies you mini-ffa players employ 🤣

Yeah, all you said is right, I think I wanna create an article about this kind of situation, it could be interesting.

Not sac, trade. Both players should cooperate in a way to allow the necessary trades with no hanging pieces as that's been been beneficial for both.

Hmm well this position is complicated because @TheCheeseDuck is probably right. Although it is possible for yellow to get second it most likely wouldn't happen as green would have to allow yellow to sacrifice their king for a knight. So this means yellow's strategy should be to promote their two pawns (obviously), but after this I would suggest yellow should act differently. Now I think i can say that many players would realize here that green needs to let yellow promote here. Green needs their rooks to have any chance of becoming first. However, once both yellow and green have promoted their two pawns, yellow should only trade one rook. Why? well because yellow should not trade the second rook with green UNTIL green gives yellow what they want. EVEN if green can capture yellow's king, yellow should just keep shuffling their rook because green doesn't want their king, they want their rook. So what does yellow want? Well yellow wants a position like this:

Suppose it was green's turn to move here, they should play Rh3 to trade with yellow. Yellow should ONLY accept trade with green if green has made it possible for yellow to sacrifice their king for the green knight (or bishop, but it would be foolish for green to allow this) on the next move, otherwise they should ALWAYS reject green's offer. Now in order for this type of cooperation it is IMPERATIVE that both players have a very good understanding of cooperation and the game in general, which is why this is very unlikely to ever happen. The game would probably end with green getting second because they foolishly take yellow's king, or it would end with green getting first but yellow getting third because yellow does not force green to allow them to sacrifice their king for the green knight. This is the IDEAL way yellow should play, but it is most likely not going to happen. Going back to the original position @BotBeg posed, another thing yellow should not do (in my opinion) is to play something like Kxd2 as although it is possible for the two players to still cooperate, it is probably better for green to just take yellow's king as (especially in this position) yellow could easily become second and screw green to third. So yellow should avoid moves like these, taking defended green material in hopes green will spare them, and instead promote their two rooks, trade one, and then wait until green allows them to sacrifice their king for the green knight to trade the second.

I hope this provides a definitive answer for you

This makes sense. My problem as an ffa player is that people don't always want to play for the benefit of each other, especially in a case like this with two players left. I guess chaturaji players think differently so I said something without considering that aspect of the game.

This is exactly the idea of this kind of situation but in the situation I show yellow can't easily get second because his pawns are like locked. Each player have to take in consideration their individual objective. Here I've just wait to make a rook and then trade with yellow on h1 but yellow made an unprotected rook so I just took it and then let him make a second one, he should have bring his king before do the first one because after it's much harder for him to get second. Another important thing here is that yellow shouldn't take a green's pawn because green needs a rook + a king and yellow needs a knight + a bishop or a rook. If it ends with Bishop + knight for green and a pawn on the d file for yellow, green can cover promote case with his bishop so they would be able to trade but then green can get first by repetition so isn't a good idea to take the pawn because to be second, yellow needs the knight and here, green isn't forced to sacrifice the knight to win. I really love this situation, I find it so interesting. The last thing I have to say is that if yellow didn't take a green's pawn and there is a green's rook covering the promotion case of the e pawn, yellow shouldn't promote because after he will be against a knight and a bishop and even if green can not get a mate or a pat without a sacrifice, he can win by repetition. In this situation, yellow should wait that green removes his rook and after that, he should wait for the kind of situation you show us to get second. The advantage of yellow is that he theoretically can let his king in check if green hasn't already eaten his rooks.

I think I miss some things, I wanna write an article.

I've just wroten an article about this kind of final, if you are interested : https://www.chess.com/clubs/forum/view/how-to-use-players-objective-to-win-with-2-players-left