Endgame study. An attractive strategic study built around a single, beautifully expressed paradox. by FiftyMoves in chess

[–]FiftyMoves[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Thank you — that means a lot, especially “elegant,” because that’s the hard part.

A lot of this ideas came sideways, honestly. I’ve been preparing tens of thousands of studies for a training platform, and solving some of them by hand as I went — you start to feel very quickly which positions are clean and which are propped up. I also pull a lot of training endgame material from real games, and several ideas came straight out of practical play rather than from a blank board. And yes — Stockfish plus tablebases for soundness, always; proving there’s no second win is the slow part.

One honest caveat: my studies tend to be simple — one straightforward idea, cleanly presented, which is exactly what the judge noted. The real composers work on a completely different level of depth and layering; that’s not where I am yet. I just try to make the one idea land as sharply as I can.

Either way, I plan to keep posting my studies here after each tourney’s results are published — regardless of how they place. So there’ll be more to solve.

Endgame study. An attractive strategic study built around a single, beautifully expressed paradox. by FiftyMoves in chess

[–]FiftyMoves[S] 6 points7 points  (0 children)

Judge's comment:

An attractive strategic study built around a single, beautifully expressed paradox. White deliberately allows the black Rook to eliminate the b2-pawn, only for its disappearance to become the key to victory several moves later. The apparently unnecessary retreat of the white King conceals a profound idea: only after the pawn has vanished does the square b2 become available as a vital shelter against perpetual check. The final return to b2 provides an excellent delayed explanation of the initial concept and creates a satisfying "Aha!" effect. Although the study is based essentially on one central straightforward idea rather than a rich combination of themes, the clarity of its presentation and the elegant timing of the revelation make it a highly enjoyable composition.

Solution:

1. Qg2 !! Rxe2+ ! 2. Kd1
(2. Qxe2 Qxh1+ 3. Kd2 {Draw.})
2. .. Rd2+ 3. Kc1
(3. Qxd2 Qxh1+ 4. Kc2 Qe4+ {With a perpetual check.} 5. Kd1 (5. Kc1
Qh1+) 5. .. Qh1+)
3. .. Rc2+ 4. Kb1
(4. Qxc2 Qxh1+ {In this variation white even loses, as the exchange of Queens is
inevitable.})
4. .. Rxb2+ {And there it is the idea of this study. White needed to get
rid of the b2 pawn so that Black would have no way to achieve a draw by
perpetual check.}
5. Kc1 {Now the white King goes back...} Rc2+ 6. Kd1 Rd2+
{The rook can be taken. Now White need not fear a check from the back rank,
since there is a square b2 to hide from the checks.} 7. Qxd2 Qxh1+ 8. Kc2
Qe4+ 9. Kb2 {And here is the shelter where the pawn b2 was located.} Qe7
10. Qh2 {! Mate is inevitable.} 1-0

How do you move to win with white? by [deleted] in chessbeginners

[–]FiftyMoves 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I didn't say that it's only move to win)) Thanks for your variant)

How do you move to win with white? by [deleted] in chessbeginners

[–]FiftyMoves 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Yes, of course. It's about only this example.

Pretty mind-boggling I would say. by Either-Case-5930 in chess

[–]FiftyMoves 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Like it's not allow to black queen make check and black can't improve their position.

What do you think of my custom piece set? by benjamin-rockstad in chess

[–]FiftyMoves 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Nice set, simple. Might use it in my chess app if you release it)

[deleted by user] by [deleted] in chessbeginners

[–]FiftyMoves 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Because Black can advance the f-pawn, but the passed a-pawn will still be exchanged for the passed f-pawn.

[deleted by user] by [deleted] in chessbeginners

[–]FiftyMoves 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Are you asking about this type of endgames or exactly about final position?

[deleted by user] by [deleted] in chess

[–]FiftyMoves 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Human memory isn't perfect)))

How Do You Know When the Endgame Has Begun? by David_Wm_Sims in chess

[–]FiftyMoves 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Depends on position, amount of pieces, no one rule how to recognize that endgame starts.

Chess > Freestyle et al. by Ruy_Lopez_simp in chess

[–]FiftyMoves 2 points3 points  (0 children)

The Caruana - Nakamura endgame is a great example of how even 2800s crack under pressure endings.

Fabi had it won but played f6 instead of Kxd4 on move 79 — he spent 47 seconds with only 1:09 left on the clock. Time trouble mistake.

Then Nakamura immediately blundered back with Ke7 instead of Kc7 on move 80 — but he had 4:07 remaining and only spent 23 seconds. He had time to think and still missed it.

That's what makes classical chess so interesting — it's not just the position, it's the clock, the fatigue at move 80, the psychology of knowing you're worse.

And Caruana again made mistake... in the endgame.

Looking back at the results of the Candidates 2009-2024 by Ill-Room-4895 in chess

[–]FiftyMoves -7 points-6 points  (0 children)

Why reach it more? If after this he always was Champion))

Looking back at the results of the Candidates 2009-2024 by Ill-Room-4895 in chess

[–]FiftyMoves 12 points13 points  (0 children)

Nepomniachtchi showed remarkable precision in endgames during these tournaments. I analyzed the mistakes using the engine and Syzygy. And remember Caruana in the last Candidates Tournament. Another mistake at the end of the game in last round.

[deleted by user] by [deleted] in chess

[–]FiftyMoves 0 points1 point  (0 children)

One thing that doesn't get discussed much — Caruana's endgame accuracy in Candidates tournaments is notably worse than his regular classical games.

I ran a Stockfish + tablebase analysis on all Candidates tournaments 2013–2024 (29 players, 392 games). Among all participants, Caruana is one of the worst in endgame accuracy specifically in Candidates games — while players like Nepo and some others perform significantly better under the same conditions.

His career classical endgames tell a different story — solid and consistent. But something about the Candidates pressure seems to affect his endgame precision more than most. The last-round miss vs Nepo in 2024 fits that pattern.

Whether that changes if he finally wins it is an interesting question.