Herman Grooten

Revealing mistakes by a strong grandmaster

Revealing mistakes by a strong grandmaster

I have often noticed that even very experienced (top) grandmasters sometimes lack the knowledge of theoretical endgames. A lifetime simply contains too little time to learn everything that might be needed to play an endgame perfectly. Funnily enough, even in positions with very little material on the board, problems sometimes crop up that you wouldn't expect. The margin between win and draw is sometimes so close that it pays to delve into seemingly simple positions. I found two interesting cases where the strongest player had a very difficult time against an opponent that was (much) weaker on paper. In the Cambridge Open 2025 (in England), top British player Michael Adams (2661 and former world number four) played in the second round against Dutch player Marcel Schroer (with a modest rating of 2085). The rating difference was hardly reflected during the game so the game slipped into the endgame, in which both players had only one rook and one pawn each as of move 59. In the process, the175

The difference between theory and practice

The difference between theory and practice

The difference between endgame theory and practice can sometimes prove to be very difficult. Even the greatest players in the world in several cases go wrong in making decisions that are sometimes taken for granted by the outside world. For example, I think most strong chess players in rook endgames are familiar with the principle of the “shoulder budge” which played a significant role in the famous example Alekhine – Bogoljubow (1929) in which the black player made a historic blunder by taking the wrong “turn” with his king causing him to miserably lose the remaining endgame of rook against pawn. In my book, I refer to this concept in the section on the endgame of “rook against pawn” (p. 94). Afterward, on p. 251, I draw attention to the aforementioned example from the 1929 World Cup game. How great then is my surprise when I see how the very respectable Croatian grandmaster Ivan Saric (didn't he once beat Magnus Carlsen beautifully in the 2014 Olympiad?) appears to have momentarily forgotten175

All rooks ending are drawn, or…??

All rooks ending are drawn, or…??

People sometimes say that all rook endgames are drawn. But is that really the case? Why is this statement so often made? The reason seems clear: some endgames, even with two extra pawns, may appear won but still end in a draw. That makes evaluating of such positions especially tricky. And sometimes a rook endgame with an equal number of pawns is simply lost because one player’s pieces are much more active than the opponent’s. Proper evaluation of such positions requires specific knowledge. Hence the tongue-in-cheek phrase in the title of this article. In my book Chess Endgames for Club Players, I’ve devoted relatively much attention to rook endgames. There are two main reasons for this: Statistically speaking, this type of endgame occurs most frequently. This can be explained by the fact that rooks typically enter the game quite late, making it logical that other pieces are exchanged earlier. Rook endgames contain so many hidden tactical ideas and beautiful techniques that it’s very worthwhile175

Converting to a pawn endgame

Converting to a pawn endgame

In the previous installment of this (short) series on endgames, we talked about pawn endgames. Every chess player knows the dilemma that arises at some point: can he simplify the position by converting to a pawn endgame? Of course, the word “simplify” must be qualified. Because pawn endgames are often far from simple. It depends mainly on two aspects: How much knowledge a player has of pawn endgames How good are the player's calculation skills?   If both conditions are met, it becomes much simpler, and a player can confidently go for the pawn endgame, in which he is sure to win! The Dutch grandmaster Jan Timman once wrote that it is not a matter of finding the most optimal way to win but of accurately calculating the variation to the win and getting it right, after which you can play it confidently. In the examples below, the players with the advantage decide to convert their positions to a pawn endgame that still requires the necessary technique and calculations to force a win. But175

Treacherous pawn endgames by Herman Grooten

Treacherous pawn endgames

In modern times, many games end up in phases in which there is little time on the clock to make quick decisions. Not infrequently, these are endgames in which a winning position must be converted into a win, or a bad/lost position can sometimes still be kept as a draw. For many tournament foxes, the study of endgames is not high on their wish list, but in doing so, they regularly do themselves wrong. It is sometimes said that pawn endgames are the basis of every other endgame. Because almost always the opportunity arises to convert one endgame into another, and of course that can end up in a pawn endgame. Then you have to assess the evaluation of that remaining endgame. In addition to the necessary basic knowledge, a certain insight is needed to evaluate a pawn endgame properly. And if a player is in a winning position, he also needs to find during the game sometimes the only line (occasionally even the only move!) that will give him victory in which every choice listens very closely. It175