Two knights endgame
|
|
|
|
The two knights endgame is a chess endgame with a king and two knights versus a king, possibly with some other material. The material with the defending king is usually one pawn, but some positions studied involve additional pawns or other pieces. In contrast to a king plus two bishops (on opposite-colored squares), or a bishop and a knight, a king and two knights cannot force checkmate against a lone king. (However, the superior side can force stalemate.) Although there are checkmate positions, the superior side cannot force them against proper (and easy) defense (Speelman, Tisdall & Wade 1993:11).
| a | b | c | d | e | f | g | h | ||
| 8 |     | 8 | |||||||
| 7 | 7 | ||||||||
| 6 | 6 | ||||||||
| 5 | 5 | ||||||||
| 4 | 4 | ||||||||
| 3 | 3 | ||||||||
| 2 | 2 | ||||||||
| 1 | 1 | ||||||||
| a | b | c | d | e | f | g | h | ||
On the other hand, if the weaker side also has material, checkmate is sometimes possible (Troitzky 2006:197–257). The winning chances with two knights are insignificant except against a few pawns.[1] These positions were studied extensively by A. A. Troitsky. (See Troitsky line.) With a single pawn the technique (when it is possible) is to block the pawn with one knight and use the king and other knight to force the opposing king into a corner or near the other knight. Then when the block on the pawn is removed, the knight can be used to checkmate (Dvoretsky 2006:280).
Two knights cannot force checkmate
|
|
|
|
|
Although there are checkmate positions with two knights against a king, they cannot be forced. Edmar Mednis stated that this inability to force checkmate is "one of the great injustices of chess" (Mednis 1996:40).
Unlike some other theoretically drawn endgames, such as a rook and bishop versus rook, the defender has an easy task in all endings with two knights versus a lone king. The player simply has to avoid moving into a position in which he or she can be checkmated on the next move, and always has another move available in such situations (Speelman, Tisdall & Wade 1993:11).
Three knights and a king can force checkmate against a lone king within twenty moves (unless the defending king can win one of the knights) (Fine 1941:5–6).
In the corner
| a | b | c | d | e | f | g | h | ||
| 8 |     | 8 | |||||||
| 7 | 7 | ||||||||
| 6 | 6 | ||||||||
| 5 | 5 | ||||||||
| 4 | 4 | ||||||||
| 3 | 3 | ||||||||
| 2 | 2 | ||||||||
| 1 | 1 | ||||||||
| a | b | c | d | e | f | g | h | ||
The player with the lone king has to make a blunder to be checkmated. In this position, 1.Ne7 or 1.Nh6 immediately stalemates Black. White can try instead:
- 1. Nf8 Kg8
- 2. Nd7 Kh8
- 3. Nd6 Kg8
- 4. Nf6+
and now if Black moves 4...Kh8?? then 5.Nf7# is checkmate, but if Black moves
- 4... Kf8
then White has made no progress (Keres 1984:2–3).
| a | b | c | d | e | f | g | h | ||
| 8 | | 8 | |||||||
| 7 | 7 | ||||||||
| 6 | 6 | ||||||||
| 5 | 5 | ||||||||
| 4 | 4 | ||||||||
| 3 | 3 | ||||||||
| 2 | 2 | ||||||||
| 1 | 1 | ||||||||
| a | b | c | d | e | f | g | h | ||
Johann Berger gave this position, a draw with either side to move. With White to move:
- 1. Nf5 Kh8
- 2. Ng5 Kg8
- 3. Ne7 Kf8! (Black just avoids 3...Kh8? which leads to a checkmate on the next move with 4.Nf7#)
- 4. Kf6 Ke8
and White has made no progress. With Black to move:
- 1... Kh8
- 2. Nf7 Kg8
- 3. Nh6 Kh8
- 4. Ng5
gives stalemate (Guliev 2003:74).
On the edge
| a | b | c | d | e | f | g | h | ||
| 8 | | 8 | |||||||
| 7 | 7 | ||||||||
| 6 | 6 | ||||||||
| 5 | 5 | ||||||||
| 4 | 4 | ||||||||
| 3 | 3 | ||||||||
| 2 | 2 | ||||||||
| 1 | 1 | ||||||||
| a | b | c | d | e | f | g | h | ||
There are also checkmate positions with the inferior side's king on the edge of the board (instead of the corner), but again they cannot be forced ("Chess program Wilhelm". Archived from the original on December 8, 2008. {{cite web}}: Unknown parameter |deadurl= ignored (|url-status= suggested) (help) + "Nalimov Engame Tablebases". AutoChess.). In the position at right, White can try 1. Nb6+, hoping for 1...Kd8?? 2.Ne6#. Black can easily avoid this with, for example, 1... Kc7. This possible checkmate is the basis of some problems (see below).
Examples from games
| a | b | c | d | e | f | g | h | ||
| 8 |  | 8 | |||||||
| 7 | 7 | ||||||||
| 6 | 6 | ||||||||
| 5 | 5 | ||||||||
| 4 | 4 | ||||||||
| 3 | 3 | ||||||||
| 2 | 2 | ||||||||
| 1 | 1 | ||||||||
| a | b | c | d | e | f | g | h | ||
In this position from a 1949 game[2] between Pal Benko and David Bronstein, Black had just underpromoted to a knight (104...f2–f1=N+ 105.Kd2–c3 Kg2–f3). Black did not promote to a queen or any other piece because White could fork Black's king and his newly promoted piece (104...f1=Q 105.Ne3+) immediately after the promotion. White made the humorous move
- 106. Nh2+
forking Black's king and knight, but sacrificing the knight. Black responded
- 106... Nxh2
and a draw was agreed (Benko 2007:133).
Another example is the eighth game from the 1981 World Chess Championship match between Anatoly Karpov and Viktor Korchnoi.[3]
Troitsky line
|
|
|
|
|
|
| a | b | c | d | e | f | g | h | ||
| 8 |  | 8 | |||||||
| 7 | 7 | ||||||||
| 6 | 6 | ||||||||
| 5 | 5 | ||||||||
| 4 | 4 | ||||||||
| 3 | 3 | ||||||||
| 2 | 2 | ||||||||
| 1 | 1 | ||||||||
| a | b | c | d | e | f | g | h | ||
| a | b | c | d | e | f | g | h | ||
| 8 |  | 8 | |||||||
| 7 | 7 | ||||||||
| 6 | 6 | ||||||||
| 5 | 5 | ||||||||
| 4 | 4 | ||||||||
| 3 | 3 | ||||||||
| 2 | 2 | ||||||||
| 1 | 1 | ||||||||
| a | b | c | d | e | f | g | h | ||
| a | b | c | d | e | f | g | h | ||
| 8 | | 8 | |||||||
| 7 | 7 | ||||||||
| 6 | 6 | ||||||||
| 5 | 5 | ||||||||
| 4 | 4 | ||||||||
| 3 | 3 | ||||||||
| 2 | 2 | ||||||||
| 1 | 1 | ||||||||
| a | b | c | d | e | f | g | h | ||
1. Kh4 Kg2 2. Kg4 Kg1 3. Kh3 Kh1 4. Ng3+ Kg1 5. Nf3#
The pawn does not move; it assists mate by blocking the king's escape.
Whilst two knights cannot force checkmate (with the help of their king) against a lone king, a decrease in material advantage allowing the defending king to have a pawn can actually cause his demise. The reason that checkmate can be forced is that the pawn gives the defender a piece to move and deprives him of a stalemate defense (Müller & Lamprecht 2001:19–20). Another reason is that the pawn can block its own king's path without necessarily moving (e.g. Kling & Horwitz position right).
The Troitsky (or Troitsky) line (or Troitsky position) is a key motif in chess endgame theory in the rare but theoretically interesting ending of two knights versus a pawn.
The line, assuming White has the two knights and Black the pawn, is shown left.
The Russian theoretician Troitsky made a detailed study of this endgame and discovered the following rule:
If the pawn is securely blockaded by a white knight no further down than the line, then Black loses, no matter where the kings are.
— Karsten Müller and Frank Lamprecht, Fundamental Chess Endings 2001
An example of the application of this rule is given in the diagram Müller and Lamprecht right; "... the position would be lost no matter where the kings are". (Müller & Lamprecht 2001)
However, the checkmate procedure is difficult and long. In fact, it can require up to 115 moves by White, so in competition often a draw by the fifty-move rule will occur first (but see this article and Second Troitsky line section for the zone where the win can be forced within fifty moves).
Troitsky showed that "on any placement of the black king, White undoubtedly wins only against black pawns standing on [the Troitsky line] and above" (Rabinovich 2012:88).
John Nunn analyzed the endgame of two knights versus a pawn with an endgame tablebase and stated that "the analysis of Troitsky and others is astonishingly accurate" (Nunn 1995:265). He undertook this checking after the very ending occurred in a critical variation of his post mortem analysis of a game he lost to Korchnoi in the 1980 Phillips and Drew Tournament in London. Neither player knew whether the position was a win for the player with the knights (Korchnoi).
Even when the position is a theoretical win, it is very complicated and difficult to play correctly. Even grandmasters fail to win it. Andor Lilienthal failed to win it twice in a six-year period, see Norman vs. Lilienthal and Smyslov vs. Lilienthal. But a fine win is in a game by Seitz, see Znosko-Borovsky vs. Seitz (Giddins 2012:26).
Two knights versus pawn is sometimes called the "Halley's Comet" endgame.[4]
Examples
| a | b | c | d | e | f | g | h | ||
| 8 | | 8 | |||||||
| 7 | 7 | ||||||||
| 6 | 6 | ||||||||
| 5 | 5 | ||||||||
| 4 | 4 | ||||||||
| 3 | 3 | ||||||||
| 2 | 2 | ||||||||
| 1 | 1 | ||||||||
| a | b | c | d | e | f | g | h | ||
This diagram shows an example of how having the pawn makes things worse for Black (here Black's pawn is past the Troitsky line), by making Black have a move available instead of being stalemated.
- 1. Ne4 d2
- 2. Nf6+ Kh8
- 3. Ne7 (if Black did not have the pawn at this point, the game would be a draw because of stalemate)
- 3... d1=Q
- 4. Ng6#
If Black did not have the pawn move available, White could not force checkmate.
| a | b | c | d | e | f | g | h | ||
| 8 |  | 8 | |||||||
| 7 | 7 | ||||||||
| 6 | 6 | ||||||||
| 5 | 5 | ||||||||
| 4 | 4 | ||||||||
| 3 | 3 | ||||||||
| 2 | 2 | ||||||||
| 1 | 1 | ||||||||
| a | b | c | d | e | f | g | h | ||
The longest wins require 115 moves; this is one example starting with 1... Ne7.
Pawn beyond the Troitsky line
| a | b | c | d | e | f | g | h | ||
| 8 | | 8 | |||||||
| 7 | 7 | ||||||||
| 6 | 6 | ||||||||
| 5 | 5 | ||||||||
| 4 | 4 | ||||||||
| 3 | 3 | ||||||||
| 2 | 2 | ||||||||
| 1 | 1 | ||||||||
| a | b | c | d | e | f | g | h | ||
In this study by André Chéron, White wins even though the pawn is well beyond the Troitsky line (Müller & Lamprecht 2001:20).
| a | b | c | d | e | f | g | h | ||
| 8 |  | 8 | |||||||
| 7 | 7 | ||||||||
| 6 | 6 | ||||||||
| 5 | 5 | ||||||||
| 4 | 4 | ||||||||
| 3 | 3 | ||||||||
| 2 | 2 | ||||||||
| 1 | 1 | ||||||||
| a | b | c | d | e | f | g | h | ||
White to play draws. Black to play loses. (Averbakh & Chekhover 1977:119–120).
In the situation with Black's rook pawn blockaded on h3, if the black king can enter and remain in the area marked with crosses in the adjacent diagram, the game is a draw. Otherwise, White can force the black king into one of the corners not located in the drawing zone and deliver checkmate. Black cannot be checkmated in the a8-corner because the knight on h2 is too far away to help deliver mate: Black draws by pushing the pawn as soon as White moves the knight on h2. White to play in the diagram can try to prevent Black to enter the drawing zone with 1.Ke6, but Black then plays 1...Kg5 aiming to attack the knight on h2. White is compelled to stop this with 2.Ke5 which allows Black to return to the initial position with 2...Kg6, and White has made no progress (Averbakh & Chekhover 1977:119–120).
Topalov versus Karpov
| a | b | c | d | e | f | g | h | ||
| 8 | | 8 | |||||||
| 7 | 7 | ||||||||
| 6 | 6 | ||||||||
| 5 | 5 | ||||||||
| 4 | 4 | ||||||||
| 3 | 3 | ||||||||
| 2 | 2 | ||||||||
| 1 | 1 | ||||||||
| a | b | c | d | e | f | g | h | ||
Anatoly Karpov lost an endgame with a pawn versus two knights to Veselin Topalov[5] although he had a theoretical draw with a pawn past the Troitsky line; because of its rarity, Karpov seemed not to know the theory of drawing and headed for the wrong corner. (Depending on the position of the pawn, checkmate can be forced only in certain corners (Troitzky 2006).) In this "rapid play" time control, the position in the game was initially a draw, but Karpov made a bad move which resulted in a lost position. Topalov later made a bad move, making the position a draw, but Karpov made another bad move, resulting in a lost position again.[6]
Wang versus Anand
| a | b | c | d | e | f | g | h | ||
| 8 | | 8 | |||||||
| 7 | 7 | ||||||||
| 6 | 6 | ||||||||
| 5 | 5 | ||||||||
| 4 | 4 | ||||||||
| 3 | 3 | ||||||||
| 2 | 2 | ||||||||
| 1 | 1 | ||||||||
| a | b | c | d | e | f | g | h | ||
This position from a blindfold game between Yue Wang and Viswanathan Anand leads to an example with a forced win even though the pawn is past the Troitsky line.[7] The game continued
- 61... Kc5,
blocking the pawn with the wrong piece. Black should have played 61...Ne4 62. c4 Nc5!, blocking the pawn on the Troitsky line with a knight, with a forced win. The game continued:
- 62. c4 Ne4
- 63. Ka4 Nd4
- 64. Ka5.
Black still has a forced win in this position, even after letting the pawn advance past the Troitsky line:
- 64... Nc6+
- 65. Ka6 Kd6!!
- 66. c5+ Kc7
and Black has a forced checkmate in 58 more moves (Soltis 2010:42). However, the actual game was drawn.
Second Troitsky line
| a | b | c | d | e | f | g | h | ||
| 8 |  | 8 | |||||||
| 7 | 7 | ||||||||
| 6 | 6 | ||||||||
| 5 | 5 | ||||||||
| 4 | 4 | ||||||||
| 3 | 3 | ||||||||
| 2 | 2 | ||||||||
| 1 | 1 | ||||||||
| a | b | c | d | e | f | g | h | ||
Karsten Müller asked for the "second Troitsky line", which corresponds to where the knights can win without the fifty-move rule coming into effect. If Black's pawn is blocked by a white knight on or behind one of the dots, White can force a win within fifty moves. If the pawn can be blocked on or behind one of the Xs, White can force a win within fifty moves more than 99 percent of the time.[8]
More pawns
|
Fine & Benko, diagram 201
|
Fine, ECE #1778
Lomonosov Tablebases
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Two knights can win in some cases when the defender has more than one pawn. First the knights should blockade the pawns and then capture all except one. The knights cannot set up an effective blockade against four connected pawns, so the position generally results in a draw. Five or more pawns usually win against two knights (Fine & Benko 2003:101).
Example from game
| a | b | c | d | e | f | g | h | ||
| 8 | | 8 | |||||||
| 7 | 7 | ||||||||
| 6 | 6 | ||||||||
| 5 | 5 | ||||||||
| 4 | 4 | ||||||||
| 3 | 3 | ||||||||
| 2 | 2 | ||||||||
| 1 | 1 | ||||||||
| a | b | c | d | e | f | g | h | ||
In this 1991 game between Paul Motwani and Ilya Gurevich, Black has blockaded the white pawns. In ten moves, Black won the pawn on d4. There were some inaccuracies on both sides, but White resigned on move 99 (Speelman, Tisdall & Wade 1993:114).
Position of mutual zugzwang
| a | b | c | d | e | f | g | h | ||
| 8 |  | 8 | |||||||
| 7 | 7 | ||||||||
| 6 | 6 | ||||||||
| 5 | 5 | ||||||||
| 4 | 4 | ||||||||
| 3 | 3 | ||||||||
| 2 | 2 | ||||||||
| 1 | 1 | ||||||||
| a | b | c | d | e | f | g | h | ||
There are positions of mutual zugzwang in the endgame with two knights versus one pawn. In this position, White to move draws but Black to move loses. With Black to move:
- 1... Kh7
- 2. Ne4 d2
- 3. Nf6+ Kh8
- 4. Ne7 (or 4.Nh4) d1=Q
- 5. Ng6#
With White to move, Black draws with correct play. White cannot put Black in zugzwang:
- 1. Kf6 Kh7
- 2. Kf7 Kh8
- 3. Kg6 Kg8
- 4. Ng7 Kf8
- 5. Kf6 Kg8
- 6. Ne6 Kh7! (but not 6...Kh8? because White wins after 7.Kg6!, which puts Black to move)
- 7. Kg5 Kg8
- 8. Kg6 Kh8
and White has no way to force a win (Averbakh & Chekhover 1977:106).
Checkmate in problems
The possible checkmate on the edge of the board is the basis of some composed chess problems, as well as variations of the checkmate with two knights against a pawn.
Angos
| a | b | c | d | e | f | g | h | ||
| 8 | | 8 | |||||||
| 7 | 7 | ||||||||
| 6 | 6 | ||||||||
| 5 | 5 | ||||||||
| 4 | 4 | ||||||||
| 3 | 3 | ||||||||
| 2 | 2 | ||||||||
| 1 | 1 | ||||||||
| a | b | c | d | e | f | g | h | ||
In this problem by Alex Angos, White checkmates in four moves:
- 1. Ne6! Nd8
- 2. Nf6+ Kh8
- 3. Ng5 N–any (Black is in zugzwang and any knight move must abandon the protection of the f7-square)
- 4. Nf7# (Angos 2005:46).
| a | b | c | d | e | f | g | h | ||
| 8 | | 8 | |||||||
| 7 | 7 | ||||||||
| 6 | 6 | ||||||||
| 5 | 5 | ||||||||
| 4 | 4 | ||||||||
| 3 | 3 | ||||||||
| 2 | 2 | ||||||||
| 1 | 1 | ||||||||
| a | b | c | d | e | f | g | h | ||
A similar problem was composed by Johann Berger in 1890. The solution is:
- 1. Nf7! Nd6
- 2. Nh6+ Kh8
- 3. Ng5
followed by
- 4. Ngf7# (Matanović 1993:492–93).
de Musset
| a | b | c | d | e | f | g | h | ||
| 8 |  | 8 | |||||||
| 7 | 7 | ||||||||
| 6 | 6 | ||||||||
| 5 | 5 | ||||||||
| 4 | 4 | ||||||||
| 3 | 3 | ||||||||
| 2 | 2 | ||||||||
| 1 | 1 | ||||||||
| a | b | c | d | e | f | g | h | ||
In this composition by Alfred de Musset, White checkmates on the edge of the board in three moves with:
- 1. Rd7 Nxd7
- 2. Nc6 N–any
- 3. Nf6# (Hooper & Whyld 1992).
Sobolevsky
| a | b | c | d | e | f | g | h | ||
| 8 |    | 8 | |||||||
| 7 | 7 | ||||||||
| 6 | 6 | ||||||||
| 5 | 5 | ||||||||
| 4 | 4 | ||||||||
| 3 | 3 | ||||||||
| 2 | 2 | ||||||||
| 1 | 1 | ||||||||
| a | b | c | d | e | f | g | h | ||
In this study composed by Sobolevsky, White wins by checkmating with two knights:
- 1. Nh8+ Kg8
- 2. Kxg2 Bf4
- 3. Ng6 Bh6!
- 4. Ng5 Bg7!
- 5. Ne7+ Kh8
- 6. Nf7+ Kh7
- 7. Bh4! Bf6!
- 8. Ng5+ Kh6[9]
- 9. Ng8+ Kh5
- 10. Nxf6+! Kxh4
- 11. Nf3# (Nunn 1981:6).
Nadanian
In this study composed by Ashot Nadanian, White wins by checkmating with two knights:
- 1. Rg8!! Rxg8
If 1...Re7, then 2.N6f5! Re1 3.Rxg6+ Kxh5 4.Rxh6+ Kg5 5.Nf3+ and White wins.
- 2. Ne4+ Kxh5
- 3. Ne6
and checkmate on the next move, due to zugzwang; two white knights deliver four different checkmates:[11]
- 3... R–any 4. Ng7#
- 3... Nd–any 4. Nf6#
- 3... Ng–any 4. Nf4#
- 3... f3 4. Ng3#
History
The first known composition where two knights win against one pawn is, according to Lafora, by Gioachino Greco in 1620.[12] In 1780, Chapais did a partial analysis of three positions with the pawn on f4 or h4 (Troitzky 2006:200). In 1851 Horwitz and Kling published three positions where the knights win against one pawn and two positions where they win against two pawns (Horwitz & Kling 1986:64–68). The analysis by Chapais was revised by Guretsky-Cornitz and others, and included by Johann Berger in Theory and Practice of the Endgame, first published in 1891. However, the analysis by Guretsky-Cornitz was incorrect and the original analysis by Chapais was in principle, correct (Troitzky 2006:200). Troitsky started studying the endgame in the early 20th century and published his extensive analysis in 1937 (Mednis 1996:43). Modern computer analysis found it to be very accurate (Nunn 1995:265).
Master games with this ending are rare – Troitsky knew of only six when he published his analysis in 1937. In the first four (from c. 1890 to 1913), the weaker side brought about the ending to obtain a draw from an opponent who did not know how to win. The first master game with a win was in 1931 when Adolf Seitz beat Eugene Znosko-Borovsky (Troitzky 2006:197–99).[13]
| a | b | c | d | e | f | g | h | ||
| 8 | | 8 | |||||||
| 7 | 7 | ||||||||
| 6 | 6 | ||||||||
| 5 | 5 | ||||||||
| 4 | 4 | ||||||||
| 3 | 3 | ||||||||
| 2 | 2 | ||||||||
| 1 | 1 | ||||||||
| a | b | c | d | e | f | g | h | ||
| a | b | c | d | e | f | g | h | ||
| 8 | | 8 | |||||||
| 7 | 7 | ||||||||
| 6 | 6 | ||||||||
| 5 | 5 | ||||||||
| 4 | 4 | ||||||||
| 3 | 3 | ||||||||
| 2 | 2 | ||||||||
| 1 | 1 | ||||||||
| a | b | c | d | e | f | g | h | ||
| a | b | c | d | e | f | g | h | ||
| 8 | | 8 | |||||||
| 7 | 7 | ||||||||
| 6 | 6 | ||||||||
| 5 | 5 | ||||||||
| 4 | 4 | ||||||||
| 3 | 3 | ||||||||
| 2 | 2 | ||||||||
| 1 | 1 | ||||||||
| a | b | c | d | e | f | g | h | ||
See also
Notes
- ^ Haworth, Guy McC (2009). "Western Chess:Endgame Data". CentAUR.
- ^ Benko–Bronstein
- ^ Karpov vs. Korchnoi
- ^ use of name
- ^ Topalov vs. Karpov
- ^ Muller article
- ^ Wang vs. Anand
- ^ The second Troitsky line
- ^ There is no apparent win after 8...Kg7, based on analysis by Houdini 2.0. Yet according to Nalimov tablebases - White does win by force.
- ^ "ChessBase Christmas Puzzles: A tale of seven knights". ChessBase. 2009-12-29. Retrieved 6 February 2010. Broken link
- ^ "Solutions to 2009 Christmas Puzzles". ChessBase. 2010-02-02. Retrieved 6 February 2010. Broken link
- ^ C.R. Lafora (1965). Dos caballos en combate. Madrid: Aguilera, p.39.
- ^ Znosko-Borovsky vs. Seitz
References
- Angos, Alex (2005), You Move ... I Win!: A Lesson in Zugzwang, Thinkers' Press, Inc., ISBN 978-1-888710-18-2
- Averbakh, Yuri; Chekhover, Vitaly (1977), Knight Endings, Batsford, ISBN 0-7134-0552-X
- Dvoretsky, Mark (2006), Dvoretsky's Endgame Manual (2nd ed.), Russell Enterprises, ISBN 1-888690-28-3
- Fine, Reuben (1941), Basic Chess Endings, McKay, ISBN 0-679-14002-6
- Fine, Reuben; Benko, Pal (2003), Basic Chess Endings (1941) (2nd ed.), McKay, ISBN 0-8129-3493-8
- Giddins, Steve (2012), The Greatest Ever Chess Endgames, Everyman Chess, ISBN 978-1-85744-694-4
- Guliev, Sarhan (2003), The Manual of Chess Endings, Russian Chess House, ISBN 5-94693-020-6
- Hooper, David; Whyld, Kenneth (1992), The Oxford Companion to Chess (s2nd ed.), Oxford University Press, ISBN 0-19-866164-9 Reprint: (1996) ISBN 0-19-280049-3
- Horwitz, Bernhard; Kling, Josef (1986), Chess Studies and End-Games (1851, 1884), Olms, ISBN 3-283-00172-3
- Keres, Paul (1984), Practical Chess Endings, Batsford, ISBN 0-7134-4210-7
- Matanović, Aleksandar (1993), Encyclopedia of Chess Endings (minor pieces), vol. 5, Chess Informant
- Mednis, Edmar (1996), Advanced Endgame Strategies, Chess Enterprises, ISBN 0-945470-59-2
- Müller, Karsten; Lamprecht, Frank (2001), Fundamental Chess Endings, Gambit Publications, ISBN 1-901983-53-6
- Nunn, John (1981), Tactical Chess Endings, Batsford, ISBN 0-7134-5937-9
- Nunn, John (1995), Secrets of Minor-Piece Endings, Batsford, ISBN 0-8050-4228-8
- Rabinovich, Ilya (2012) [1927], The Russian Endgame Handbook, Mongoose, ISBN 978-1-936277-41-4
- Seirawan, Yasser (2003), Winning Chess Endings, Everyman Chess, ISBN 1-85744-348-9
- Soltis, Andy (January 2010), "Chess to Enjoy: EGTN", Chess Life, 2010 (1): 42–43
- Speelman, Jon; Tisdall, Jon; Wade, Bob (1993), Batsford Chess Endings, B. T. Batsford, ISBN 0-7134-4420-7
- Troitzky, Alexey (2006), Collection of Chess Studies (1937), Ishi Press, ISBN 0-923891-10-2 The last part (pages 197–257) is a supplement containing Troitsky's analysis of two knights versus pawns.
External links
- Grandmaster and endgame specialist Karsten Müller wrote a helpful two-part article on this endgame called The Damned Pawn (in PDFs):
- Part 1 about the Troitsky line and the technique
- Part 2: the second Troitsky line solved the winning line taking into account the 50-move rule, and more winning techniques and drawing zones.
| Outline | |||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Equipment | |||||||||
| History | |||||||||
| Rules | |||||||||
| Terms | |||||||||
| Tactics | |||||||||
| Strategy | |||||||||
| Openings |
| ||||||||
| Endgames | |||||||||
| Tournaments |
| ||||||||
| Art and media | |||||||||
| Related | |||||||||
