To win any endgame, you must create weaknesses in the enemy position, whether material or positionally. In many cases, just one weakness is not enough unless it is impossible to defend against it. Sometimes this may involve you weakening your own position just to create a second weakness in their position such as by sacrificing the Knight. For instance the position below is a draw:
I did manage to win the game as this position happened during a time scramble, but black's only weakness in the position is their material deficit which cannot even be used because there are still the same number of pieces on the board! Even sacrificing the Rook for the Bishop will not work simply because the pawn is a Rook's pawn! Well it is very unfortunate to get such a position, but it is unwinnable because black only has one weakness in the position.
However, in the position below, there are queens on the board, material is equal and it bishops of opposite colour! Yet I had much more winning chance than in the previous position because there are 2 weaknesses in my opponent's position after the move I played!
I proceeded to win that game quite easily as my opponent was unable to handle so many weaknesses (and again time pressure played a role) but it was a much easier position to win than the previous position where I was up material.
But as seen, this principle provides much more wins than passively letting the position play out to a result, and is the reason you very often need at least two pawns more to win a Bishops of opposite colour endgame.
How does this work
Imagine you have only one thing you need to do (let's say just a school hmw). Easy, just focus on that! But imagine that you also have to study for a chess tournament too. Now it is going to get hard to manage both because you cannot fully focus on both! The more things you have to do, the tougher it becomes to complete them, and that is how this principle works.
If you are going to make concrete weaknesses in their position in an endgame, try to make sure they are as far apart as possible as it gets even more difficult to manage both weaknesses. The reason that principle is only focusing on creating 2 weaknesses is because that is the bare minimum number of weaknesses to make it difficult to defend. You can try to create even further weaknesses if you like, but try not to risk your position too much to the point you are losing (or not going to get your desired result at all).
The Technique at the Highest level
Ever wondered why Magnus wins his endgames so easily? Some of you probably seen Gothamchess's video on the endgame Magnus Carlsen played against Viswanathan Anand and saw Levy hyping a lot about the game and how Magnus had no business winning it, but what he really meant was that it is a difficult endgame to win. Below was the following position at move 32:
It does look a lot like black has nothing here (and this is a draw with perfect play) because of the Bishop's being on opposite colour and because black's pieces currently are passive, but white still has 2 weaknesses: the h-pawn which could lead to black gaining a passed pawn, and the doubled pawns on the queenside which could give future breakthroughs for black if not defended. It is really difficult for black to even use these weaknesses, but if anyone's playing for a win, black is simply because of the 2 weaknesses. The game continued as so:
Towards the end, Anand had also created a lot of counterplay purely through the principle of 2 Weaknesses, and the game was overall an excellent demonstration on how to play out the principle of 2 weaknesses. Sure, the position was drawn but defending a position is quite difficult to do as you also suffer psychological pressure that you have slipped up somehow in the position.
Seen masters do it, see me do it, now it's your turn!
Introduction
To win any endgame, you must create weaknesses in the enemy position, whether material or positionally. In many cases, just one weakness is not enough unless it is impossible to defend against it. Sometimes this may involve you weakening your own position just to create a second weakness in their position such as by sacrificing the Knight. For instance the position below is a draw:
I did manage to win the game as this position happened during a time scramble, but black's only weakness in the position is their material deficit which cannot even be used because there are still the same number of pieces on the board! Even sacrificing the Rook for the Bishop will not work simply because the pawn is a Rook's pawn! Well it is very unfortunate to get such a position, but it is unwinnable because black only has one weakness in the position.
However, in the position below, there are queens on the board, material is equal and it bishops of opposite colour! Yet I had much more winning chance than in the previous position because there are 2 weaknesses in my opponent's position after the move I played!
I proceeded to win that game quite easily as my opponent was unable to handle so many weaknesses (and again time pressure played a role) but it was a much easier position to win than the previous position where I was up material.
But as seen, this principle provides much more wins than passively letting the position play out to a result, and is the reason you very often need at least two pawns more to win a Bishops of opposite colour endgame.
How does this work
Imagine you have only one thing you need to do (let's say just a school hmw). Easy, just focus on that! But imagine that you also have to study for a chess tournament too. Now it is going to get hard to manage both because you cannot fully focus on both! The more things you have to do, the tougher it becomes to complete them, and that is how this principle works.
If you are going to make concrete weaknesses in their position in an endgame, try to make sure they are as far apart as possible as it gets even more difficult to manage both weaknesses. The reason that principle is only focusing on creating 2 weaknesses is because that is the bare minimum number of weaknesses to make it difficult to defend. You can try to create even further weaknesses if you like, but try not to risk your position too much to the point you are losing (or not going to get your desired result at all).
The Technique at the Highest level
Ever wondered why Magnus wins his endgames so easily? Some of you probably seen Gothamchess's video on the endgame Magnus Carlsen played against Viswanathan Anand and saw Levy hyping a lot about the game and how Magnus had no business winning it, but what he really meant was that it is a difficult endgame to win. Below was the following position at move 32:
It does look a lot like black has nothing here (and this is a draw with perfect play) because of the Bishop's being on opposite colour and because black's pieces currently are passive, but white still has 2 weaknesses: the h-pawn which could lead to black gaining a passed pawn, and the doubled pawns on the queenside which could give future breakthroughs for black if not defended. It is really difficult for black to even use these weaknesses, but if anyone's playing for a win, black is simply because of the 2 weaknesses. The game continued as so:
Towards the end, Anand had also created a lot of counterplay purely through the principle of 2 Weaknesses, and the game was overall an excellent demonstration on how to play out the principle of 2 weaknesses. Sure, the position was drawn but defending a position is quite difficult to do as you also suffer psychological pressure that you have slipped up somehow in the position.
Seen masters do it, see me do it, now it's your turn!