Bishop + 2 Pawns vs. Knight + Pawn
An endgame I learned with FinalGenwww.mtu-media.com/fina gen/home_ing.phpA knight is poor at defending when the pawn structure is on the edge, because it has less mobility to defend own pawn and less squares where it can attack the base of the enemy pawn chain. The pawns' locations don't matter as much to the bishop since it is able to simultaneously play against the knight on one side of the board while also playing against the pawn on the other side (Note: in these studies, it is always assumed that the bishop's side has locked the enemy pawn on the same color as the bishop, and there are no passed pawns). Bishop vs. Knight endgames with a 2 vs 1 pawn structure are generally draws (especially with more central pawn structures), because it is easy for the Knight to force the creation of a pawn chain and attack the base of the pawn chain. White wins in the video by not allowing the Kf7 Ng8 fortress, in which Black would defend easily with combinations of securing f5 with Ne7+, threatening to activate the King, and threatening to attack g4 with Nf6. Similar endgames with a 3 vs 2 structure are winning far more often, since the bases of the pawn chains will be further away, it will be harder for Black to threaten White's base while also defending own.
Uploaded: July 19, 2012 at 7:02 pm
Guy Haworth (November 30, 1999 at 12:00 am)
A Rusz conjectured that this is a 'Vital Zug', requiring any winning line to go through the shallower (btm) side of the zug.E Bleicher used FREEZER to prove that this is the case: DTC = 46m(wtm)/10m(btm).This implies that FinalGen's indications of (equi-)optimal moves are also indications of DTC/DTM-(equi-)optimal moves.This is the deepest Vital Zug I know (zug-depth 36m) but as there are sub-6-man Type B zugs up to a zug-depth of 90m, we may find deeper Vital Zugs than this one.g