Talk:Opposite-colored bishops endgame

Citation style

The refs in the text look a bit weird; is this a special chess reference style or something?--Starwed 08:54, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

No, it is the standard Harvard referencing style. (also see Wikipedia:Harvard referencing.) Bubba73 (talk), 18:42, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

And see Wikipedia:Citing sources. Bubba73 (talk), 22:02, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

"history" section

The earliest endgame with opposite colored bishops where one side has one or two pawns in the chessbase database is a 1862 game between Paulsen and Anderssen. I've added it under isolated pawns, but I don't think it is worthy of a "history" section. Bubba73 (talk), 03:52, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, as you said in talking about the "history of zwischenzug", asking who had the first opposite-colored bishop ending is like asking who was the first person to see the moon. I'll bet Philidor talks about it; I'll look in his book when I get home. I wouldn't be at all surprised if people before Philidor (Damiano, Lolli, etc.) discussed opposite-colored bishop endgames; it's not exactly an estoric concept. Krakatoa (talk) 16:32, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

I have none of that old material. I have one or two of Lasker's books and the recent revision of Capablanca's Fundamentals. Then my next oldest book is BCE, which I consider "modern". Bubba73 (talk), 17:12, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

I was surprised to see that Philidor doesn't talk about opposite-colored bishop endgames. In the Oxford Encyclopedia of Chess Games, Volume I [I forget the years; 1450-1866 or something like that] there is one odds game of Philidor's that ends in such an ending, but it's not too interesting (even pawns, with each side having one passed pawn). I also couldn't find anything in Staunton's The Chess-Player's Handbook (1847), which has no bishop endings. I don't have anything before Philidor. I looked at Mednis's book on bishop endings, and the earliest opposite-colored bishop endings he has are endgame studies from the 1890's or so. Weird. Krakatoa (talk) 22:32, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

More 3-pawn examples?

Does anybody know of many examples of when three extra pawns aren't enough? Especially interesting is when the pawns are not tripled, entirely isolated, etc. One great example is Milan Vidmar vs Geza Maroczy, 1932. It's a fun game to watch because Vidmar, out of either irony or frustration, decides to underpromote two of his pawns into bishops. See http://www.chessgames.com/perl/chessgame?gid=1094403 Daniel Freeman (talk) 19:53, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

I don't know of many, but the article has two from games, including Lautier-Rublevsky where there are three connected pawns. A good example from a game would be welcome. As much as I like, use, and reference ChessGames, I prefer to have a paper source for comments and analysis of games. Do you know if the Vidmar-Maroczy is in any books? (If it is any of the books at chess endgame literature then I have it.) Bubba73 (talk), 02:27, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

And the underpromotion caused it to end up with a pair of bishops on the SAME color! Bubba73 (talk), 02:31, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

PS - three isolated pawns or two connected plus one isolated should win. So about the only time when there is a draw with three pawns should be when they are all connected (or doubled as in the Vidmar game). Bubba73 (talk), 03:04, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

I added the Vidmar game as an external link, but more could be said. But I checked all of my books that might have it that had an index of games, and I didn't find it in a book. Bubba73 (talk), 18:30, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

I haven't seen anything about in my books that isn't already in the article, either. I think it's pretty unusual that the three pawns can't win. Something like doubled rook pawns of the wrong color, with the defending king in front of them, and one other pawn that the defending bishop is able to take care of (i.e. like the Alekhine-Ed. Lasker game, but with an extra rook pawn) would be another example, but pretty trivial. Krakatoa (talk) 18:35, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

Piskov vs. Nunn example

Black does not have a losing position in this game prior to White's move 37, as is claimed in the article. In fact, White has the inferior position in all lines unless he immediately exchanges rooks, with the aftermath of said exchange being rated 0.00, or an indicated forced draw by perpetual check & repetition, according to the Stockfish10 engine. White's Bf6 courts the response Qb1+, with Black gaining the initiative, and White (not Black) now desperately hoping to avoid blundering to secure a draw. (I.e., following Qb1+, play ideally follows Kf2, Qxa2+, and the White king must pick g1 or g3, but not f1 or f3, to maintain his drawing chances.) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:444:380:3A90:3C92:F78A:8FAB:21DE (talk) 23:12, 3 April 2019 (UTC)

The article doesn't say that Black has a losing position before move 37, it says "inferior". The section illustrates how Black used the opposite-colored bishops. And it is referenced. Bubba73 ^{You talkin' to me?} 23:17, 3 April 2019 (UTC)

Semantic point: I used "losing" as a synonym for "inferior". A position is "inferior" only if it is worse than the opponent's; i.e., more calculable to result in a loss. But Black is not losing at the end of move 36, and in fact will win unless it is White who plays perfectly to secure a draw. Should his opponent play the best possible moves subsequent, immediate rook exchange is the only forced drawing line available for White as his Move 37.

42. Bxd4 a6 -- a6 is a blunder by Black, with the engine rating White at +1.33 if he plays Kf2 and starts hustling his king toward the center of the board to his two passed pawns. If Black's response to Kf2 is not Bd3 or Bb1 (i.e., counter-intuitively not hustling his king toward the center in the end-game), he will absolutely lose this game (with the engine rating rocketing past +5 for White), and even the bishop moves are only chasing a draw from a now inferior position (inferior only since he voluntarily went down material during the imprudent exchanges). But instead of Kf2, White played a3, his own Move 42 blunder, and the game resolved to a draw as both sides played suboptimally in equal measure.

(Dvoretsky 2006:92) -- The problem here is these "old" (and pub date 2006 is "old", considering) books predating the engine-era being treated as "authoritative" when it comes to positional analysis. But they are not. Algorithms are orders-of-magnitude more powerful now, and anybody with even a crummy 2006 vintage PC can explore these positions in a web-engine rated 3500+ (or, 700 FIDE points higher than the best human players).

Dvoretsky was just plain wrong. The final position (an OCBE) was drawn, but Black was not "inferior" at the end of Move 36, and subsequently had no reason to desire a draw at that point. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:444:380:3A90:3C92:F78A:8FAB:21DE (talk) 00:18, 4 April 2019 (UTC)

I understand that your native language is not English. But White has the better position and Black has an inferior position. Stockfish rates the position 0.00 because it can see the draw. Black still has to play well from his inferior position to get a draw. Bubba73 ^{You talkin' to me?} 04:28, 4 April 2019 (UTC)

Spassky joke wife

Please let us include Spassky's incorrect joke about wife opposite colour bishop when divorcing?

Also it's wrong because if you're opposite colour then you don't collide and so you're at peace and thus remain married - but if you're same colour then you butt heads a lot and thus divorce? Thewriter006 (talk) 17:30, 23 May 2023 (UTC)