More of the Same 
by Hanon W. Russell

Improve Your Endgame Play by GM Glenn Flear, 2000 Everyman
Chess, English Algebraic Notation, Softcover, 160pp., $14.95

Several months ago Everyman Chess (the successor to the British
publisher Cadogan) released three books apparently intended to
help the less experienced player. They were: Improve Your
Opening Play by Chris Ward; Improve Your Middlegame Play by
Andrew Kinsman; and Improve Your Endgame Play by Glenn
Flear. The first two have already been reviewed at The Chess Cafe
(readers are invited to read the full reviews in the Archives) and
were found to be somewhat underwhelming. The third volume in
the trilogy is about the endgame and it carries on the tradition of
mediocrity.

The book is divided into twelve chapters: (1) Important Endgame
Themes; (2) Endgames with just Pieces; (3) Pawn Endgames; (4)
Knight Endgames; (5) Bishops of the Same Colour; (6) Bishops of
Opposite Colour; (7) Bishop versus Knight; (8) Rook Endgames;
(9) Queen Endgames; (10) Pieces versus Pawns; (11) Practical
Advice; and (12) Solutions to Exercises.

Each chapter is dotted with large, bold-faced 'Notes' and 'Tips'
designed to help the reader absorb the general concepts. Chapters
are further sub-divided according to type of position discussed and
each concludes with several test positions to be solved.

Unfortunately, the books suffers from a peculiar lack of
organization, the absence of clear guidelines for students and the
inclusion of what can only be described as motivational platitudes.
The overall impression is a book that makes a decent effort to
achieve its goal, but clearly falls short.

The muddled state of affairs is evident from the very first chapter.
One of the most important principles of the endgame is Zugzwang.
We could go on at length discussing the nature of this key concept,
but that is beyond the scope of a review. However, in the first
chapter, there is a section entitled "Zugzwang". The author states:
"In chess it is not possible to say to your opponent 'I'd rather not
move, go ahead an please have another turn!' you have to have your
turn if it pleases you or not." That's it. The full "explanation" of
one of the most important endgame principles of all. How
inadequate.

Examples are not always as clear as they should be for instruction.
Again, from the first chapter, the concept of a 'fortress' is
discussed. Here it is, in its entirety:

White: Kh5, Qf5 
Black: Kg8, Ne5, Bg7

"Diagram 6 sees an unusual position. White cannot breakdown the
black set-up. He cannot get close enough with his king to mate or
force zugzwang [uh-oh, that word again]; we say that Black has a
'fortress'." OK, strictly speaking, everything Flear says is true. But
take a look at the following position:

White: Kh4, Qa6 
Black: Kg7, Re5; pawn - f6

White cannot win because Black has set up a fortress: The white
King cannot cross the fifth rank to support the Queen; the position
is drawn despite White's substantial material advantage. Is there
really any doubt which position is a better example of a fortress?

The organization of the material does not seem to follow logically.
Let us look at Chapter Four, Knight Endgames. There are three
sub-sections: Converting an Extra Pawn; Other Types of
Advantages; and Endings with Very Little Material. It would seem
logical that the material should be presented with N+P v N first,
gradually moving to positions with more pawns. Instead the first
position is N+5Ps v N+4Ps; then next is N+4Ps v N+3Ps; we don't
arrive at the basic N+P v N discussion until well into the chapter.
This is hardly conducive to any orderly learning process.

From Chapter Four Knight Endgames

Endings with just knights, kings and pawns are considered the
closest in character to pure pawn endings. This is perhaps the most
striking in the case of an extra pawn for one side and no
counterplay for the other, as again this is almost always decisive.
With many pawns for each player the defence can be equally as
hopeless, but in examples with very few pawns remaining there is
naturally the extra defensive option of sacrificing the knight for the
remaining opposing pawns.

NOTE: The ending of king and knight against lone king is drawn.

Knights are essentially short-range pieces that have the
characteristic of changing the colour of their square each time they
move. This means they are the only chess piece that, on their own,
cannot triangulate, so here again it's the kings that do the dodging
and weaving. In compensation, they are the only pieces that can
leap over other pieces or pawns...

All the pawns on one wing

White: Ke2, Nd4; pawns - e4, f3, g2, h2 
Black: Kg7, Nd6; pawns - f7, g6, h7

This type of ending occurs time and again in practical play: one
player wins a pawn but the other succeeds in exchanging off all the
pawns on one wing.

The same pawn structure but without pieces is a clear win, with
knights White is probably winning. However, if we instead gave
each side a bishop of either colour, or a rook (say rooks on a7 and
d6) or indeed a queen (on a7 and d6) then in each case a draw
would be the most likely result.

TIP: Knight endings are the closest in character to pure pawn
endings.

Let's see how White wins against passive defence.

1...Kf6 2 g3 Ke5 3 Nc6+ Ke6 4 Ke3 Kd7 5 Nd4 f6 6 f4 Ke7 7 h4
Gradually White enhances his space advantage and restricts the
black knight. 7...Nf7 8 g4 Kd7 9 Kd3 Ke7 10 Kc4 Kd6 11 g5
Creating a passed pawn after all! 11...fxg5 12 hxg5 Ke7 13 e5 Nd8
14 Kd5 Nf7 15 Nc6+ Ke8 16 e6 Nh8 17 Ke5 Kf8 18 Kf6 and
Black is squeezed into submission.

Let's check how a more active defence fares.

4...f5 Instead of 4...Kd7. 5 Nd4+ Kf6 6 exf5 gxf5 7 Kf4 Kg6 8 Ke5
Nf7+ 9 Ke6 Nd8+ 10 Ke7 Nb7 11 Ne6 Na5 12 Nf4+ Kg5 13 h4+
Kh6 14 Kf6 and the f-pawn and all hope are lost.

These are sample lines and not exhaustive, which is why I covered
myself by claiming that White probably wins!

TIP: The black knight proves to be an ineffective defender when
White can centralise his knight and use his king and pawns to take
away useful squares from the enemy piece.

There is one aspect of this example that, at the very least, is a little
troubling. This position was seen in Reuben Fine's opus magnus
Basic Chess Endings, first published over sixty years ago. It is
position No. 130 in that book. Of course, the analysis in BCE is
much more extensive, as it should be in a book almost four times
longer. However, at no point does Flear credit the position to Fine
(or anyone else for that matter). At best, this is unfortunately
sloppy; at worst, well, fill in the blank yourself. (Concerning the
alleged use of other people's material, interested readers are
referred to current thread 240 at The Chess Cafe Bulletin Board.) 

This Improving Your  Play series was a good concept. However, it
needed the strong, guiding red pencil of an attentive editor to
organize and refine it into a worthwhile project. Neither this book
nor either of its two predecessors had such benefit. As a result
there remains substantial room for, uh ... improvement.