Principle of the two weaknesses

I'm looking for example games about this interesting strategic principle.

I found some examples in Shereshevsky: endgame strategy, and Grandmaster chess strategy, by Kaufeld and Kern.

But I was curious to see if other authors, in other books treated the topic. Or if someone had a list of games which shows such principle into action.

Silman in his endgame book also talks about the principle of the two weakness.

It's an exceptional endgame book, aimed at players from beginner to master level.

Thanks Mr. Nature. I understood the first weakness, the Pb7, and was fixed, but in this case I don't see the second weakness, which should be on the kingside, and white's play on it.

I felt it was a draw, since Black wasn't even obliged to exchange rooks. I put the position in Houdini, around move 28-29, because Black never activated his king, and stragely preferred to exchange rooks, which again I don't think it is sound, and the evaluation is a draw (generally plus or minus 0.20 or 0.30 are not important, and in some endgames is a draw even when Houdini says plus or minus 1, because one thing is the material on the board, and different thing is actually winning with that material)

practically I believe it is a draw if Black doesn't make big blunders, like he did in the game.

I have a very deep interest in endgames and have studied this principle in several books.Though, I am not a titled player whose comments and analysis you may better rely upon, yet I will try to convey what I have understood about "Principle of two weaknesses"(P.T.W).

First, let me clarify what PTW means and where it is applicable.

(1)PTW is mainly effective in those positions when you have a space advantage.Space advantage gives your pieces better mobility, this means that you can transfer your pieces from one side of the board to other side very easily while your opponent can't do the same.

Thus, if you are attacking a pawn on the kingside, your opponent protects it. Then you immediately transfer your pices to attack another pawn on the queenside. Your opponent finds it difficult to transfer his pieces so quickly and is not able to defend as quickly as your attack and hence he loses. This is how PTW work in middlegame.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

(2)In the endgame however, both the forces are almost equally mobile. Therefore, the technique described in (1) would not work as effectively because your opponent has almost equal mobility and to defend weaknesses in queenside and then on the kingside is not so difficult.

So, we use another form of PTW.

Remember the main idea of the technique presented in point (1) is that you make harder for your opponent to defend his weaknesses(or counter our strength[this is important]). For example if your opponent has three weaknesses and only one piece then it's harder for your opponent to defend. That's it, another form of PTW.

Let me give a simple example

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

(3)Let me clarify another form of PTW with yet another simple example.

This is another form of PTW at work. Remember, your strength and your opponent's weakness is almost always the same thing.

Therefore, PTW doesn't always mean

(a)attacking opponent's weaknesses on two sides of the board, but is also

(b)reducing the number of opponent's defenders, and 

(c)attacking opponent's weakness on one side and playing on your strength on the other side of the board.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Now, let me comment on the game posted by Mr_Nature. Note that I am not a high level player nor I have the caliber to comment and find mistakes on the moves of a GM. I am simply commenting on what I could understand from whites play.

I didn't deeply analyse the game as to which was a wrong move or which was the stronger one. I just presented my views on how white used the PTW.

Hope this helps.

My System has a chapter on this.

Thank you The_Cosmologist, your explanation was really good, thanks.

Though there is no harm in knowing the correct evaluation of the position or trying to know the correct moves. But, I would warn you not to let the computer analysis affect your own game. 

There are many positions in chess which are draw or at least equal from computer point of view but practically it is not so. You should try, try and try as hard as you can to win. You should try to create problems for your opponent so that he is forced to make mistake even if it's an equal position and not contend yourself by saying "Ah, it was an equal position and a draw was expected."

We have a great example today in form of Magnus Carlsen.You can simply see in the games 5 and 6 of the WCM against Anand. The game was equal till the endgame and majority of the players would have had no problem accepting a draw. But, Magnus kept on trying and creating threats and was ultimately paid.If Anand would't have made mistakes, those games would have ended in a draw.

Remember, your opponent is a human and not Houdini who will be able to draw an equal position.It depends on you whether you want to win or not.

In the game posted by Mr_Nature, it could be a draw position (as you mentioned by your computer evaluation) but, white tried to make his position better regardless of whether it was a draw or not.He offered black to exchange his defender, tried to create a passed pawn, forced black to leave weak squares and pawns and that's why he was able to win.

I hope you understood what I am trying to say.

Yes, Mr. The_Cosmologist, I understood what you try to convey. I believe a good example could be the following, where surely a computer gives material advantage to Black, but it is a draw.

However, I use the computer first because I don't live with a GM (but if there is a GM lady who would like to share the house, I'm ready for it!) and second because more often than not the engine sees moves I didn't think of. But of course I'm afraid it can damage me to rely on it.