% BOOKTITLE = Endgame Strategy (sample)
[Event "?"]
[Site "?"]
[Date "????.??.??"]
[Round "?"]
[White "About this Publication"]
[Black "?"]
[Result "*"]
[Annotator "Mikhail Shereshevsky"]
[PlyCount "1"]
[SourceTitle "Endgame Strategy"]
[Source "Everyman Chess"]
[SourceDate "2020.08.11"]

{Shereshevsky's masterful guide to endgame play is an essential work for every
aspiring player. Using classic examples from grandmaster practice, together
with modern illustrations and instructive games by lesser-known players,
Shereshevsky lucidly explains the basic principles of the endgame:} 1. Z0 (1.
Z0 {king centralization}) (1. Z0 {the role of pawns,}) (1. Z0 {exchanging
pieces,}) (1. Z0 {suppressing counterplay,}) (1. Z0 {two weaknesses,}) (1. Z0 {
... and much more.}) *

[Event "?"]
[Site "?"]
[Date "????.??.??"]
[Round "?"]
[White "Foreword to the English ed"]
[Black "?"]
[Result "*"]
[Annotator "Mikhail Shereshevsky"]
[PlyCount "1"]
[SourceTitle "Endgame Strategy"]
[Source "Everyman Chess"]
[SourceDate "2020.08.11"]

{Shereshevsky's book 'Endgame Strategy' was published in the USSR in 1981 in an
edition of 50,000 and was immediately sold out. --- The author, one of the
strongest players from Belarus, has worked extensively as a trainer. In his
lessons with young players Shereshevsky has made use of the end teaching
methods of one of the country's leading trainers, M.Dvoretzky, and has worked
out a definite system.} 1. Z0 {This book contains an interesting selection of
endings. Along with classic examples there are endings both of leading modern
grandmasters, as well as of less well known players. The author aims in the
first instance to explain the course of the struggle, penetrate into the
psychology of the players' actions, and to focus the readers' attention on
the turning points and characteristic mistakes. In contrast to the majority of
works on the endgame, the book is divided into chapters not according to
material, but according to the playing methods which are most characteristic
of the given group of endings. The names of certain chapters have an unusual
ring: "Do not hurry", "The problem of exchanging", "The principle of
two weaknesses", and so on. For this English edition the author has added a
number of endings played in recent times, as well as endings from games by the
strongest English players. --- The main value of the book, in my opinion, lies
in the fact that it contains specific advice and recommendations on how to
improve endgame technique, for which the practical player will sometimes
search in vain when studying multi-volume reference books on the endgame.} (1.
Z0 {A. Yusupov, International Grandmaster}) *

[Event "?"]
[Site "?"]
[Date "????.??.??"]
[Round "?"]
[White "Introduction"]
[Black "?"]
[Result "*"]
[Annotator "Mikhail Shereshevsky"]
[PlyCount "1"]
[SourceTitle "Endgame Strategy"]
[Source "Everyman Chess"]
[SourceDate "2020.08.11"]

{From the practical point of view, the endgame is the least well studied stage
of chess. Chess literature contains very few works on the endgame, and in the
main these are reference works, in which theoretical and not practical
positions are analyzed. --- The present book is an attempt to study and
systemize certain basic practical principles of the playing of chess endings.
--- The necessity for a systematic approach to the study of chess endings
occurred to me mainly as a result of my teaching experience. It is no secret
that, in the preparation of young players, many trainers and teachers devote
most attention to the study of numerous opening systems and the forms of
middlegame resulting from them. The endgame is always allotted very little
time. --- Some trainers give their pupils the most elementary conceptions of
the endgame, assuming that with the general development of a player his
mastery of endgame play will also rise. Others demonstrate long and complex
analyses from reference books, although the probability of such positions
being repeated in a practical game is slight. It is evident that both
approaches are a long way from the truth: the mastery of a player is directly
dependent not so much upon his amount of theoretical knowledge, as upon his
understanding of the general principles of conducting chess endings.} 1. Z0 {
In 1976 I happened to be the second of international master Mark Dvoretzky
during the USSR Championship 1st League in Minsk. Dvoretzky adjourned his game
with grandmaster Taimanov in a superior position. In one of the lines of
analysis a rook ending with f- and h-pawns was reached. Dvoretzky referred to
a book on rook endings, and began studying the appropriate chapter. I was
surprised: after all, Dvoretzky is a great expert on the endgame. To my
question he replied that he knew the basic principles of playing such endings,
but did not even attempt to remember lengthy concrete analyses. Later during
the tournament we frequently discussed the question of how to study the
endgame. Dvoretzky considers it essential to know the classics, to analyze
complicated practical rather than theoretical endings, and to find general
rules and principles of play in complex endings. And in theoretical endings it
is sufficient to know whether the ending is won or drawn, and to have a rough
impression of the plan of play. --- Of course, every trainer has his own style
of working, and his own system for preparing players. But it is worth
recalling that Mark Dvoretzky, an Honoured Trainer of the Russian Federal
Republic, has prepared three Junior World Champions. And all three – Valery
Chekhov, Artur Yusupov and Sergey Dolmatov – are very strong in the endgame.
--- Of course, the role of exact knowledge in the endgame should not be
underestimated. The five-volume series Comprehensive Chess Endings, edited by
grandmaster Yuri Averbakh, is the most detailed reference work on this aspect
of the game. And even so, in the introduction to this series it is emphasized
that a sure indication of a strong player is good playing technique in complex
endings.} (1. Z0 {The present book studies such basic principles of play in
complex endings centralization of the king, schematic thinking, prophylaxis,
and the principles of "do not hurry" and of two weaknesses. The majority of
these were formulated with amazing precision and conciseness in an article by
a talented Soviet master who was killed during the Second World War, Sergey
Belavenets, an extract from which is given after this introduction. Also
examined are typical endgame positions with the advantage of two bishops, an
isolated d-pawn, and a 3-2 queenside pawn majority. Some examples are given to
study the problem of exchanging, and ways of battling for the initiative in
the endgame. In conclusion we give a number of complex endings, in which the
various principles expounded in the previous chapters are put into practice.
--- The knowledge of many rules, and the choice of a specific plan based on
them, is mainly of a psychological nature. Therefore in certain examples,
especially where Belarusian players are involved, I have laid particular
emphasis on the competitive situation in which the game was played. --- Of
course, the rules and recommendations given in the book cannot be regarded as
unshakeable and universal endgame laws. Chess is too complex and diverse for
that. Latent or manifest in each position are its rules, principles and
regularities, many of which a player will often sense intuitively. --- Without
pretending to offer universal recommendations, the author has aimed mainly to
help players to be better oriented in endings, and to be more correct and
accurate in taking the necessary decisions in practical play.}) *

[Event "?"]
[Site "?"]
[Date "????.??.??"]
[Round "?"]
[White "2: Centralization of the King"]
[Black "?"]
[Result "*"]
[Annotator "Mikhail Shereshevsky"]
[PlyCount "1"]
[SourceTitle "Endgame Strategy"]
[Source "Everyman Chess"]
[SourceDate "2020.08.11"]

{In the transition of a game into the endgame it is the role of the king that
changes most of all. In the opening and the middlegame the king endeavours to
find a safe shelter and to observe the battle from afar, without as a rule
taking any direct part in it, but in the endgame, when the probability of a
mating attack is greatly reduced, the king is transformed into an active
fighting unit. Often an experienced player, anticipating the transition into
an ending, will in advance bring his king closer to the centre, so as then to
obtain a playing advantage.} 1. Z0 {Centralization of the king is one of the
main principles of endgame play, but, paradoxically, many players sometimes
disregard it. Centralization of the king in the endgame is hardly ever
incorrect. It can only be inopportune. Very often, when one side has several
apparently equally good plans, the correct one will be that in which the main
factor is the centralization of the king. We can therefore advise the reader:
if the game has gone into an endgame and you are considering what plan to
adopt, never forget about the king!} *

[Event "Nottingham"]
[Site "?"]
[Date "1936.??.??"]
[Round "?"]
[White "Capablanca, JR"]
[Black "Reshevsky, S"]
[Result "1-0"]
[Annotator "Mikhail Shereshevsky"]
[SetUp "1"]
[FEN "6k1/6pp/2b2p2/1p1p4/p6P/1P1NPPP1/P4K2/8 b - - 0 1"]
[PlyCount "42"]
[EventDate "1936.??.??"]
[SourceTitle "Endgame Strategy"]
[Source "Everyman Chess"]
[SourceDate "2020.08.11"]

{White stands better. Black, apart from his isolated pawn, has a whole complex
of weak dark squares on the queenside, especially c5. The winning procedure
seems fairly straightforward: it should be sufficient to transfer the king to
d4 and the knight to c3, when Black will practically be in zugzwang. But in
White's position too there are vulnerable points: his pawn formation is not
flawless. Were his rook's pawn at h2, all would be clear. As grandmaster
Bondarevsky aptly put it, the white pawn at h4 is that hook which, by holding
on to, Black creates counterplay. This is a classic ending and it has been
annotated by many authors, but the most correct and accurate analysis is that
given by Bondarevsky in 'Shakhmatny Bulletin' 1973 No.1.} 1... g5 2. hxg5 {
White is forced to fix the kingside pawn structure, otherwise Black, by
exchanging on h4, will give White a weak pawn.} (2. h5 {came into
consideration.}) 2... fxg5 3. Nb4 ({After} 3. f4 gxf4 4. exf4 d4 $1 {Black
would in time lose his d-pawn, but would activate his bishop and have good
drawing chances in view of the limited material remaining.}) 3... axb3 4. axb3
Bb7 5. g4 {The position has clarified. Black's only counterchance is ...h5.
There are two fundamentally different ways of preparing this advance. The
first, which occurred in the game, is to prepare the advance of the rook's
pawn using the king. The second is to centralize the king to defend the
weaknesses and to support ...h5 with the bishop.} Kg7 ({We will now analyse
the second possible plan:} 5... Kf7 6. Ke2 Kf6 7. Kd3 Ke5 {. Now, as
Bondarevsky pointed out, White has to reckon with the possibility of ...d4
followed by ...Kf4, therefore:} 8. Nc2 Bc6 9. Nd4 Be8 10. Kc3 h5 11. gxh5 Bxh5
12. Kb4 g4 13. fxg4 Bxg4 14. Kxb5 Ke4 15. Kc5 Kxe3 {, and Black gains a draw.})
6. Ke2 Kg6 7. Kd3 h5 8. gxh5+ Kxh5 9. Kd4 Kh4 10. Nxd5 Kg3 {Black's idea
becomes clear - he has counterplay on the kingside.} 11. f4 g4 ({Black loses
after} 11... Bxd5 12. Kxd5 g4 13. f5 Kh3 14. f6 g3 15. f7 g2 16. f8=Q g1=Q 17.
Qh8+ Kg2 18. Qg8+ {.}) 12. f5 Bc8 ({Not} 12... Bc6 13. Nc7 {.}) 13. Ke5 Bd7 14.
e4 ({Here} 14. Nc7 {no longer works:} Bxf5 $1 15. Kxf5 Kf3 {.}) 14... Be8 15.
Kd4 $2 {A mistake, which was noticed only by Bondarevsky.} ({The grandmaster
shows that White could have won by} 15. f6 $1 Kf3 16. Nf4 g3 17. Kf5 Bd7+ {
(otherwise e4-e5-e6)} 18. Kg5 Be6 19. Nxe6 $3 g2 20. f7 g1=Q+ 21. Kf6 {.})
15... Kf3 16. e5 g3 17. Ne3 Kf4 $2 {The decisive mistake in a drawn position.}
({Alekhine showed that} 17... Bd7 {would have lost to} 18. e6 Bc8 19. e7 Bd7
20. f6 Be8 21. Nf5 {;}) ({but Bondarevsky found a draw by} 17... Bf7 $3 18. e6
Bg8 19. e7 ({or} 19. b4 Kf4 $1) 19... Bf7 20. f6 Kf4 $1 {, when White is
unable to improve his position. By the brilliant manoeuvre 17...Bf7!! Black
gains a tempo for playing his king to f4.}) {But now the rest of the game is
clear without any explanation.} 18. e6 g2 19. Nxg2+ Kxf5 20. Kd5 Kg4 21. Ne3+
Kf4 22. Kd4 {. Black resigned, since there is no defence against 23 e7
followed by the transfer of the knight to c7. --- Of course, in a practical
game it would be impossible to calculate all the above variations. Therefore
it is the general assessment of the position which assumes primary importance.
Had Reshevsky chosen the second path, he would have gained a draw.
Centralization of the king does not always give the desired result, but in the
majority of cases it is necessary.} 1-0

[Event "New York"]
[Site "?"]
[Date "1924.??.??"]
[Round "?"]
[White "Lasker, Em"]
[Black "Lasker, Ed"]
[Result "1/2-1/2"]
[Annotator "Mikhail Shereshevsky"]
[SetUp "1"]
[FEN "8/7r/p1k5/1p1N4/1P2KPP1/8/8/8 b - - 0 1"]
[PlyCount "59"]
[EventDate "1924.??.??"]
[SourceTitle "Endgame Strategy"]
[Source "Everyman Chess"]
[SourceDate "2020.08.11"]

{Black is the exchange up. In the game Black played} 1... Rh8 {with the threat
of giving check and winning the knight.} ({Annotating this game in the
tournament book, Alekhine showed that after} 1... Rd7 $1 2. Ne3 ({or} 2. Nf6
Rd8 $1 3. g5 a5 4. bxa5 b4 5. g6 b3) 2... a5 3. bxa5 b4 4. g5 Kc5 5. Nc2 b3 6.
Na3 b2 7. g6 Kb4 8. Nb1 Rd1 9. g7 Rg1 {Black wins.}) 2. Ne3 ({Forced, since} 2.
Nc3 {merely strengthens the effect of ...a5.}) 2... Re8+ 3. Kd4 Rd8+ 4. Ke4 $1
{One of the most difficult moves in this ending. It would seem that Emanuel
Lasker evaluated the position intuitively.} ({After} 4. Kc3 {Black does not
have a forced win, but the probability of defeat for White would be
considerable. Black, for instance, could play} Rd6 {. If now the knight moves
from e3, the black rook reaches d1, while if the white pawns advance the black
king transfers behind the back of the rook to e7. The main drawback to White's
position after 4 Kc3 is that his king is cut off from the kingside, and he
therefore has no real counterplay. --- Emanuel Lasker chooses a plan which,
though risky, is the only correct one. He keeps his king in the centre, from
where it can easily be switched to either wing. By threatening the advance of
his pawns, White forces Black to play ...a5, and he hopes to be able to cope
with the one black pawn. This plan demands coolness and an accurate appraisal
of all the subtleties in the position. Had the black rook been on the seventh
rank, White's play would not have succeeded.}) 4... a5 5. bxa5 b4 6. a6 $1 {
This is the tactical basis of White's play.} ({He would have lost after} 6. g5
b3 7. Nc4 Kc5 8. Nb2 Rd2 9. Nd3+ Kc4 10. Ne5+ Kc3 {.}) 6... Kc5 (6... b3 {
does not succeed:} 7. Nc4 Kb5 8. Nb2 Kxa6 9. Ke3 Kb5 10. g5 Kb4 11. g6 Kc3 12.
Na4+ {with a draw.}) 7. a7 b3 8. Nd1 {The pawn at a7 makes this move possible.}
Ra8 9. g5 Rxa7 10. g6 Rd7 11. Nb2 Rd2 12. Kf3 $1 {White is rescued by the
centralized position of his king.} Rd8 ({Black is forced to retrace his steps,
since after} 12... Rxb2 $2 13. g7 {White wins.}) 13. Ke4 Kd6 {Now White's king
rushes across to the queenside to the black pawn, sacrificing his own passed
pawns.} 14. Kd4 $1 Rc8 15. g7 $1 Ke6 16. g8=Q+ Rxg8 17. Kc4 Rg3 ({After} 17...
Rb8 {Black again loses his pawn:} 18. Kc3 Kf5 19. Nd3 Rb6 {, but if White
coolly waits with} 20. Nb2 (20. Kb2 {is bad due to} Ke4) 20... Kxf4 21. Nc4 Rb8
22. Nb2 {, Black has no possibility of winning. As soon as the black king
reaches e1 with the white king at c3 and knight at b2, there immediately
follows Na4 Kd1; Kb2, forcing the win of the pawn by Nc5.}) 18. Na4 Kf5 19. Kb4
Kxf4 20. Nb2 Ke4 21. Na4 Kd4 22. Nb2 Rf3 23. Na4 Re3 24. Nb2 Ke4 {The final
attempt to break through.} 25. Na4 Kf3 26. Ka3 $1 Ke4 ({Now} 26... Ke2 {
is met by} 27. Kb2 {.}) 27. Kb4 Kd4 28. Nb2 Rh3 29. Na4 Kd3 30. Kxb3 Kd4+ {
. A very difficult ending, in which the white king saved his army from defeat.}
1/2-1/2

[Event "Krasnodar"]
[Site "?"]
[Date "1974.??.??"]
[Round "?"]
[White "Fedorov, V"]
[Black "Chernikov, O"]
[Result "*"]
[Annotator "Mikhail Shereshevsky"]
[SetUp "1"]
[FEN "3n3r/ppN1p1kp/4p1pb/4N3/8/4P2P/PP4P1/3R2K1 w - - 0 1"]
[PlyCount "5"]
[EventDate "1974.??.??"]
[SourceTitle "Endgame Strategy"]
[Source "Everyman Chess"]
[SourceDate "2020.08.11"]

{We give the commentary to this game by grandmaster Averbakh in 'Shakhmaty v
SSSR' 1978 No.9: "White has a powerful initiative. His knights have broken
into the enemy position and with the support of the rook have created the
grounds for various tactical blows. Black's pieces are restricted, and only
his bishop is displaying some semblance of activity, by attacking the e3-pawn.
Fedorov played} 1. Kf2 {, following the good old rule that in the endgame the
king should head for the centre.} ({Yet in the position White had the
possibility of an elegant three-move manoeuvre which would have tied the
opponent hand and foot:} 1. Ng4 $1 Nc6 {(2 Rxd8 was threatened)} 2. Rf1 $1 Nd8
3. h4 $1 {, and Black's position is hopeless. White plays 4 Rf2 and takes his
king across to the queenside, winning. --- Why did Fedorov, an undoubtedly
talented master, fail to find this quite straightforward forcing manoeuvre? It
seems to me that he played his king to f2 without much thought. A pawn is
attacked, it has to be defended, and the king is better placed in the centre."
--- The position demanded thinking in terms of schemes, and the centralization
of the king should have been deferred for the moment.}) 1... Nc6 {But this
natural move gave Black a respite, and by this move he began exchanging off
White's attacking pieces. It is true that after} 2. Nxc6 bxc6 3. Rc1 {.
Fedorov won the c-pawn, but Black gained the opportunity to activate his rook,
and in the end, not without the help of his opponent and ... time trouble, he
gained a draw.} *

