100 Endgames You Must Know

Introduction
The relative importance of the endgame
In my first years in the world of chess, I used to read a lot about the importance of a good knowledge of endgames and the futility of studying openings. I used to find this kind of statement not only in Capablanca's works, but also in many articles from magazines of that time: sentences like 'Grandmasters' greater understanding is most clearly noticeable in the endgame' and similar things. Strategy used to receive the same, or similar, treatment when compared to tactics. You could read sentences like 'Grandmasters spend much more time in developing plans rather than in calculating variations' and so forth. That could be the reason why I, who spent almost my whole time during the games in calculating variations accurately, and devoted much more time to the study of openings rather than the endgame, could not even imagine that I would one day become a grandmaster. It took me a long time to discover that all those recommendations were fairly exaggerated, but perhaps I should be grateful to them, as I do not know whether, otherwise, I would have paid to the endgame the attention this stage of the game truly deserves. My concern about those statements by famous players led me to devote some time to the study of the endgame, which eventually I enjoyed. It is true, however, that it was not easy. One of my first decisions, a rather drastic one, actually, was to buy Rook Endings, by Levenfish & Smyslov, a book as excellent as it is boring. I had to start reading it several times, as I found it extremely difficult to get beyond the first one or two chapters. Nevertheless, in the end I managed to absorb some of the material. Recently, the openings have taken over as overwhelmingly the main area of chess study. All great players spend most of their time researching new variations, in order to surprise their opponents and obtain as large an advantage (or as small a disadvantage) as possible, before the game itself really begins. But do not be fooled: it is not that these players have discovered that there is no value in studying the endgame, merely that they have already done their homework and at least have a good command of the most important endings. Of course, there are some 'distinguished' exceptions, as you can see now and then in a few of the games and examples in this book, in which top players seriously misplay basic endgames, but, generally speaking, top players have good endgame technique. The fact is that the number of important theoretical endgames, and especially those which are of practical relevance, is much smaller than the field of openings. Those top players have already 'paid their dues', as it were, that is, they have studied the necessary endgame material in the past, and now they can devote greater efforts to other aspects of the game, without fear of losing unnecessary half-points in the endgame, during tournaments. Therefore, if you intend to reach a certain rating, I will not say that a good command of the endgame is essential, but it is certainly very useful. On the other hand, if you neglect this part of the game, many half points, or even full points, will now and then elude you. And you will rarely get wins in the opening to make up for those lost (half-)points, as nowadays everyone comes to their games armed to the teeth with opening preparation. To put it simply: a player who reaches a certain level as regards theory, strategy and tactics, will lose many points if his mastery of the endgame does not correspond with that same level. Thus, the study of the endgame will be the most straightforward way to improve his rating. If his mastery of the endgame is at the same level as his other skills, this effort would not be so profitable, but my experience suggests that this is not the case with most players. Why is this? Well, any player with some years of experience, even if his rating is below 2000, knows the story: 'Studying the endgame is boring'; 'Half (if not 9 0%) of the endings I look at are quickly forgotten' ; 'I can't find a book with good explanations'; and, perhaps the smartest excuse of all, 'My games never reach the endgame!' This is especially true of the games of players who avoid the endgame deliberately, sometimes by means of excessively risky play in the middlegame; such players often lose in the middlegame, as a direct result, although they generally explain away their defeats by blaming them on 'tactical blunders', or 'time-trouble' , or some similar excuse. This tendency to neglect the endgame has grown as the rates of play have become faster and adjournments have been eliminated. Previously, adjournments allowed deep analysis of positions (often endings) and helped players to develop their endgame technique and their appreciation of the endgame. Moreover, accurate play in endgames was possible with enough time on the clock, and those games were worth analysing, as they were fine works of art, where we could improve our overall chess understanding. Now it is rare that an ending is played with reasonable time on the clock, which leads to real comedies of errors. Consequently, the analysis of contemporary endgames is often more useful as Laughter Therapy than as a chess lesson. But precisely due to that lack of time on the clock, a good command of basic endgames is even more necessary than ever. If you are running out of time and do not have a clue about how to handle the position, the game is much more likely to end in disaster. When I wrote this book, my intention was to help those players willing to devote some effort to correct this (almost chronic) situation. This book can help but, let us be honest: there are neither magical formulae, nor wisdom pills: your own personal effort is essential. So I thought a lot about how to conduct the study, and why many excellent books had failed before. My main hypothesis is that most endgame books have been written as reference books, that is, compiling and presenting knowledge without the least intention of explaining. Most such books cover the ground very rapidly, and thus provoke their readers to read them equally fast. That is why I have set out to explain the endings slowly and I recommend their study be slow as well.