16469 Players currently online!
Man vs. Machine - good luck!
Turn-based games at any time!
Vote for the best move to win!
Do you have what it takes?
Backgammon, Yatzy, and more!
Sharpen your tactical vision!
Get advice and game insights!
Learn from top players & pros!
View millions of master games!
Your virtual chess coach!
Perfect your opening moves!
Test your skills vs. computer!
Find the right private coach!
Can you solve it each day?
Bring it all together!
Beginners, start here!
Make friends & play team games!
News from the world of chess!
Search all Chess.com members!
Find local clubs & events!
Who's the best of your friends?
Read what members are saying!
I am busy working through Silman's end game book and have just started learning the basics of "distant opposition". I have a question around this, just to try and clarify this concept for myself and to make sure I fully understand what is going on.
In the following position white loses the distant opposition because of a wrong move.
Here is the winning continuation for white because he is able to obtain distant opposition.
So now in this position I placed the pawn on b3, instead of c3, which enables me to hold distant opposition from move 1.
Are all of these statements that I made correct? Do I understand these concepts correctly? More examples would also be appreciated before I move on.
Thank you all
My take on this might be bit unorthodox but I've long thought the whole opposition concept isn't really necessary. Sometimes I feel it serves more to confuse than clarify matters.
I think it should be possible to solve these positions with just the knowledge of key squares. The pawn in c3 has three key squares (b5-d5). Basically white wins if his king reaches one of these. Otherwise black holds.
You are right that white wins like in diagram 2. You are also correct that 1. Kd2?? in diagram 1 is a mistake that looses the win. However your analysis contains a hole.
This is why I love Chess.com so much! How could I have missed Kd4?! Thank you Shakaali! Interesting views you have as well.
Oh, and the answer to the defense question must be for black to play 2. ..Kd7?
Diagram 3, instead of 10...Kc7, wouldn't black play 10...Ka8 to keep the opposition? Looks like a draw at that point.
I think 9 Kb6 was a mistake, and White should have instead played 9 Kc6.
10 ..Ka8 is also losing I'm afraid. I watched one of Daniel Rensch's video's on these types of positions. I memory serves me correctly, he called the position "the squeeze" as the king is squeezed out of the corner by the pawn. As for 9. Kb6, I played it because those are the rules I learnt and they just work.
You're right. Excuse me while I go buy an endgame book or something.
Well I'm only on Chapter Three of my end game book, and my brain is already fried (liver? )...
I find it scary how easy it is to make a tiny mistake in these "simple" positions and lose a whole game because of it.
Basically, in order to guard all the key squares, black must always be ready to meet Kc4 by white with Kc6, Kd4 with Kd6 and Kb4 with Kb6. Since 2. Kd3 threatens both 3. Kd4 and 3. Kc4 black must move to square that allows him to choose between Kd6/c6 next turn. That is to d7 or c7 but c7 is not reachable so that only 2... Kd7! is correct.
The drawing line after Ke8 is also quite interesting.
Yes, the idea of key squares is a good way to further understand these positions. The point of opposition is only ever to break through to these key squares (or stop an opponent from doing so). If a breakthrough is meaningless, then opposition is meaningless.
Another concept is what one author calls "mined" squares. In the diagram on post 9 above me, you can imagine b4 linked with b6, c4 with c6, and d4 with d6. When white steps on one, black must immediately step on the corresponding one. Neither king wants to step on a mined square first.
Therefore the last move 3...Kc7 is pretty obvious, because black needed to find a square that touches both b6 and c6 (because white's king can go to b4 or c4).
Positions with triangulation (or with more pawns) you'll find similar situations but engineer them so that you can maneuver to where you are touching two mined squares, but their king cannot, therefore you win :)
In the 2nd diagram after 3.Kb4 White does not have "distant opposition." The Kings have to be at least 3 squares apart to be in "distant opposition." When the Kings are one square apart they are in "near" opposition although the Wikipedia article calls that "direct opposition" which is just another way of saying the Kings are only one square apart.
Thank you everyone! I have learned a lot from all of this. And I hope it was useful to other forum-followers as well. Please keep an eye out for future questions from me...
7/25/2016 - What Must Be Done
by MDCandell a few minutes ago
Am I a fool for not playing 1. e4
by Diakonia a few minutes ago
I can't believe I lost this game...
by ChessOath 4 minutes ago
chess.com +2000 tactics seems easier for me!
by ChessOfPlayer 8 minutes ago
why doesn't anybody think NE7 is a grandmaster?
by ZijYaq 13 minutes ago
One Win Wondering?
by BIGKINAK 17 minutes ago
London system scrubs
by thegreat_patzer 26 minutes ago
Checkmate or foolsmate?
by macer75 30 minutes ago
How to take decisive action
by ddc7 46 minutes ago
Chess 2: The Sequel
by juliusII 55 minutes ago
Why Join | Chess Topics |
Help & Support |
© 2016 Chess.com
• Chess - English
We are working hard to make Chess.com available in over 70 languages. Check back over the year as we develop the technology to add more, and we will try our best to notify you when your language is ready for translating!