\documentclass[a4paper,10pt,twocolumn]{report}

\usepackage{chess}

\setlength{\topmargin}{0cm}
\setlength{\headheight}{0cm}
\setlength{\headsep}{0cm}
\setlength{\topskip}{0cm}
\setlength{\textheight}{24cm}

\setlength{\parindent}{0pt}
\setlength{\parskip}{1.5ex}

\begin{document}

\title{Exeter Chess Club: Bishops: good, bad and both.
}

\author{Dr. Dave}

\maketitle
\tableofcontents



\chapter{Good
and bad bishops
}
\section{
Good
bishops: active bishop used for attack
}
\subsection{
Euwe
- Thomas, 1934
}
{\bf\protect\begin{chess} 1. d4 d5 2. c4 e6 3. Nc3 Nf6 4. Bg5 Be7 5. e3 O-O 6. Nf3 Nbd7 7. Rc1 c6 8.
Bd3 d*c4 9. B*c4 Nd5 10. B*e7 Q*e7 11. O-O N*c3 12. R*c3\protect\end{chess}}



\board{r*b* rk*}
{pp*nqppp}
{ *p*p* *}
{* * * * }
{ *BP * *}
{* R PN* }
{PP * PPP}
{* *Q*RK }
$$\showboard$$


This was the main continuation from this opening, although it is now considered
pretty played out.  Black has a bad bishop on c8, so...

{\bf\protect\begin{chess} 12.:  e5 13. d*e5 N*e5 14. N*e5 Q*e5 15. f4\protect\end{chess} }

{\em Black has a choice of several queen moves.  In the first game we
examine what happened after\protect\begin{chess} 15.: Qe7\protect\end{chess} [next diagram]}



\board{r*b* rk*}
{pp* qppp}
{ *p* * *}
{* * * * }
{ *B* P *}
{* R P * }
{PP * *PP}
{* *Q*RK }
$$\showboard$$


White has the better bishop, currently pointed at Black''s King's side, but
this is only a temporary advantage.  Left alone, Black can play ...Be6 or move
the b-pawn and play ...Bb7.  White's only hope of a win is to keep Black on the
hop.

{\bf\protect\begin{chess} 16. f5\protect\end{chess}  }

Stops ...Be6 well enough, but Euwe has further plans for this pawn -
namely, to run it to f6, disrupting the K-side and using the good bishop for
attack.

{\bf\protect\begin{chess} 16.: b5 17. Bb3 b4 18. f6! g*f6 19. R*c6 Q*e3+ 20. Kh1\protect\end{chess} }



\board{r*b* rk*}
{p * *p*p}
{ *R* p *}
{* * * * }
{ p * * *}
{*B* q * }
{PP * *PP}
{* *Q*R*K}
$$\showboard$$


{\bf\protect\begin{chess} 20.: Bb7\protect\end{chess}   Euwe and Kramer give the alternatives:}

{\em  [\protect\begin{chess}20.:  Be6 21. B*e6 f*e6 22. Qg4+ Qg5\protect\end{chess} [}\protect\begin{chess}22.:  Kh8 23.
Rc7\protect\end{chess}{\em ]\protect\begin{chess} 23. Q*e6+ Kh8 24. R*f6 Rg8\protect\end{chess} [}\protect\begin{chess}24.:  Rfe8 25.
Qf7\protect\end{chess}{\em ]\protect\begin{chess} 25. Rf2\protect\end{chess} winning a pawn] }

{\em  [\protect\begin{chess}20.:  f5 21. Qh5\protect\end{chess} with strong attack] }

{\bf\protect\begin{chess} 21. Rc*f6 Qe4 22. Qd2 Kh8\protect\end{chess} }

{\em  [Or\protect\begin{chess} 22.:  Rad8 23. Qg5+ Kh8 24. R*f7\protect\end{chess}] }

{\bf\protect\begin{chess} 23. B*f7 Rac8\protect\end{chess} }

{\em  [Much better was\protect\begin{chess} 23.:  Rad8\protect\end{chess} with good drawing chances, despite
White's pressure e.g.\protect\begin{chess} 24. Qg5\protect\end{chess} [Rg8\protect\begin{chess} 25. B*g8 R*g8 26. Rf8 Q*g2+\protect\end{chess} =, or\protect\begin{chess} 24. Qf2
Qe7 25. Bb3 R*f6 26. Q*f6+ Q*f6 27. R*f6 Bd5\protect\end{chess} = ] }

{\em 24. R\protect\begin{chess}6f2 Rcd8\protect\end{chess} [\protect\begin{chess}24.:  Qg4\protect\end{chess}] }

{\bf\protect\begin{chess} 25. Qg5\protect\end{chess} (NEXT DIAGRAM)}



\board{ * r r k}
{pb* *B*p}
{ * * * *}
{* * * Q }
{ p *q* *}
{* * * * }
{PP * RPP}
{* * *R*K}
$$\showboard$$


{\bf\protect\begin{chess} 25.:  Rd6\protect\end{chess} }

{\em  [Not\protect\begin{chess} 25.:  Qd4 26. Bd5 Qg7\protect\end{chess} [or }\protect\begin{chess}26.:  R*f2 27. Q*d8+ Kg7
28. Qg5+ Kf8 29. Qg8+ Ke7 30. Re1+ Kd6 31. B*b7\protect\end{chess}{\em ]\protect\begin{chess} 27. R*f8+ R*f8 28.
R*f8+ Q*f8 29. Qe5+ Qg7 30. Qe8+\protect\end{chess}] }

{\bf\protect\begin{chess} 26. Bd5!\protect\end{chess} 1-0 }

{\bf\protect\begin{chess} 26.:  R*f2 27. Qg8\#\protect\end{chess} }

The QGD is not a win for White; here Black solves the problem of the Bc8.

\subsection{
Stahlberg-Trifunovich,
1951
}
{\bf\protect\begin{chess} 1. d4 d5 2. c4 e6 3. Nc3 Nf6 4. Bg5 Be7 5. e3 O-O 6. Nf3 Nbd7 7. Rc1 c6 8.
Bd3 d*c4 9. B*c4 Nd5 10. B*e7 Q*e7 11. O-O N*c3 12. R*c3 e5 13. d*e5 N*e5 14.
N*e5 Q*e5 15. f4\protect\end{chess} }

Here Black tried an alternative Q move\protect\begin{chess} 15.:  Qf6,\protect\end{chess} stopping the f\protect\begin{chess}5-f6\protect\end{chess}
rush.



\board{r*b* rk*}
{pp* *ppp}
{ *p* q *}
{* * * * }
{ *B* P *}
{* R P * }
{PP * *PP}
{* *Q*RK }
$$\showboard$$


{\bf\protect\begin{chess} 16. f5 a5 17. a4\protect\end{chess} }

{\em  [\protect\begin{chess}17. a3 b5 18. Ba2 b4 19. Rc5 Ba6 20. Re1 Bb5,\protect\end{chess} with the Black bishop
having good play] }

{\bf\protect\begin{chess} 17.:  Rb8 18. Qc2 Bd7\protect\end{chess} }

{\em  [Not\protect\begin{chess} 18.:  b5 19. a*b5 c*b5 20. B*b5 R*b5 21. R*c8\protect\end{chess}] }

{\bf\protect\begin{chess} 19. Rd3 Rbd8 20. Qd2 b5\protect\end{chess} }

{\em  [Not\protect\begin{chess} 20.:  Bc8 21. Q*a5 R*d3 22. B*d3 Q*b2 23. f6\protect\end{chess}] }

{\bf\protect\begin{chess} 21. a*b5\protect\end{chess}  Alternatives are no better:}

{\em  [\protect\begin{chess}21. Rd6 Bc8\protect\end{chess}] }

{\em  [\protect\begin{chess}21. B*b5 c*b5 22. R*d7 R*d7 23. Q*d7 Q*b2 24. Q*b5 Q*b5 25. a*b5 Rb8\protect\end{chess} ``with
meagre chances for White'' - Euwe] }

{\bf\protect\begin{chess} 21.:  c*b5 22. Bd5 Bc6\protect\end{chess}}



\board{ * r rk*}
{* * *ppp}
{ *b* q *}
{pp*B*P* }
{ * * * *}
{* *RP * }
{ P Q *PP}
{* * *RK }
$$\showboard$$


With the full entry of this piece into the game, Black has at least equal
chances

{\bf\protect\begin{chess} 23. e4\protect\end{chess} }

{\em  [\protect\begin{chess}23. B*c6 R*d3 24. Q*d3 Q*c6\protect\end{chess} may even be better for Black, since
Black's Queen-side majority look like the most important feature of the game]
}

{\bf\protect\begin{chess} 23.:  B*d5 24. e*d5 Qb6+ 25. Qf2 Q*f2+ 26. K*f2\protect\end{chess} draw agreed}






\section{
Bad
bishops
}
Bs move on squares of only one colour.  A bishop hemmed in by its own pawns on
the same colour squares is called a {\em bad bishop}.  It is sometimes
tempting to put pawns on the same colour squares as the bishop, particularly in
the ending, with the hope that the bishop will defend them.  Well,
unfortunately, the bishop will probably be so blocked by the pawns that it can
hardly defend itself.  Depending on what other pieces there are on the board,
the opponent's king will probably be able to slip in between the pawns, and the
bishop won't be able to stop it.  You want your pawns on one colour square, and
the bishop on the other, in the middle game and in the ending.  (And if you've
got two bishops in the middle game, you generally want your pawns right out of
the way.)  So be careful where you put your pawns, and don't get your bishops
stuck one side or the other of a chain of pawns.

\paragraph{
[Event
``bad bishops"][Site "-"][Date ``1956.??.??"][Round "?"]
[White
``barden"][Black ``rossolimo"][Result ``1-0"]
}
{\bf\protect\begin{chess} 1.e4 c5 2.Nf3 d6 3.d4 c*d4 4.N*d4 Nf6 5.Nc3 a6 6.f4 e6 7.Be2 Qc7 8.O-O Nc6
9.Be3 Bd7 10.g4 N*d4 11.B*d4 Bc6 12.Bf3 e5 13.Be3 Be7 14.f5\protect\end{chess} {?!}}



\board{r* *k* r}
{*pq bppp}
{p*bp n *}
{* * pP* }
{ * *P*P*}
{* N BB* }
{PPP* * P}
{R *Q*RK }
$$\showboard$$


{\bf\protect\begin{chess}  14.: h6 15.Qd2 b5 16.Rad1 Rc8 17.a3 Qb7 18.Qd3 Nd7\protect\end{chess} {!}\protect\begin{chess} 19.b4 Nb6 20.Bc1 Nc4
21.Nd5 B*d5 22.e*d5 Bg5\protect\end{chess} (exchanging the off White's best minor piece)}

{\bf\protect\begin{chess} 23.Rfe1 Qe7 24.Be4 B*c1 25.R*c1 h5 26.Qg3 h*g4 27.Q*g4 Qf6 28.Bd3 Rh4 29.Qg3
Nb6 30.Re4\protect\end{chess} }

{\em (\protect\begin{chess}30.Be4 Rc4\protect\end{chess})> }



\board{ *r*k* r}
{*q* *pp }
{p* p * p}
{*p*PpPb }
{ Pn* *P*}
{P *Q*B* }
{ *P* * P}
{* BR*RK }
$$\showboard$$


{\bf\protect\begin{chess} 30.: Rh5 31.Rg4 N*d5 32.R*g7 Nf4 33.Rg8+ Kd7 34.R*c8 K*c8 35.Qg8+ Kb7\protect\end{chess} {!}\protect\begin{chess}
36.Kh1 Qh6 37.Qg1 N*d3 38.c*d3 R*h2+\protect\end{chess} 1-0}

{\em (\protect\begin{chess}38.: R*h2+ 39.Q*h2 Q*c1+ 40.Kg2 Qd2+ 41.Kg1 Q*h2+ 42.K*h2 Kc6\protect\end{chess})
}





Please don't interpret this too rigidly: a bishop is bad only if it
lacks scope.

\section{
Bad
bishop?
}

\paragraph{
Botvinnik-Kann,
1939
}
{\bf\protect\begin{chess} 1. d4 Nf6 2. c4 e6 3. Nc3 Bb4 4. Nf3 c5 5. a3 B*c3+ 6. b*c3 Qa5 7. Bd2 Ne4
8. Qc2 N*d2 9. N*d2 d6 10. e3 e5 11. d*e5 d*e5 12. Bd3 h6 13. O-O O-O 14. f4
Nd7 15. f5 Nf6 16. Ne4 Qd8 17. N*f6+ Q*f6 18. Be4 Rb8 19. Rad1 b6 20. h3 Ba6
21. Bd5 b5 22. c*b5 R*b5 23. c4 Rb6 24. Rb1 Rd8 25. R*b6 a*b6 26. e4 Bc8\protect\end{chess}}



\board{ *br *k*}
{* * *pp }
{ p * q p}
{* pBpP* }
{ *P*P* *}
{P * * *P}
{ *Q* *P*}
{* * *RK }
$$\showboard$$


 White's theoretically `bad' bishop dominates the board and gives White a
winning game.  It is {\em Black's} bishop that is stuck behind White's pawns
on white squares!

{\bf\protect\begin{chess} 27. Qa4 Bd7 28. Qa7 Be8 29. Rb1 Rd6 30. a4 Kh7 31. a5 b*a5 32. Q*a5 Ra6 33.
Q*c5 Ra2 34. Qe3 Qa6 35. Rb8 Qa4 36. Kh2 Ra3 37. Qc5 Ra2 38. Ra8 Q*a8 39. B*a8
R*a8 40. Q*e5 Bc6 41. Qc7\protect\end{chess} 1-0}







\chapter{
The
two bishops
}
"{\em Deux fous gagnent toujours, mais trois fous,
non!}"
 -- Alexander ALEKHINE, on the advantage of the Two Bishops at amateur
level

The bishop is a longer-range piece than the knight.  This advantage is
sometimes called the minor exchange, for, all else being equal, the bishop will
be a better piece than the knight.  Two bishops, provided they can make use of
their better range and aren't blocked by pawns, are rather better than two
knights or a knight and a bishop, particularly in fully open positions.  (Think
how easy it is to mate with the two bishops.  Have you ever tried to mate with
two knights?) 


\textbf{Capablanca advised rehearsing the mate with the two Bishops, not
because it was particularly likely to occur in practice, but to experience
directly the power of two Bishops cooperating in an open position.}

 

 So in OPEN positions, the two bishops are boss.

 In CLOSED positions, the knights may be better.

 In SEMI-OPEN positions. well...

The side with the two bishops must not let the knight(s) settle on any
outposts, and can create trouble on both sides of the board at once when the
poor knights will be hard-put to keep up.  It's generally though that the two
bishops are good enought to win.  Paulsen made use of this in the middle 1800s,
but the technique was perfected and publicised by Steinitz.  

Let's have a look at these in turn.



\section{
Bishops:
two bishops in ending
}
This was my introduction to the power of the two bishops.

\paragraph{
Ditmas,H
- Regis,D (March, 1979)
}
{\bf\protect\begin{chess} 1. e4 e6 2. d4 d5 3. Nd2 c5 4. e*d5 Q*d5 5. Ngf3 c*d4 6. Bc4 Qd6 7. O-O Nc6
8. Nb3 Nf6 9. Nb*d4 N*d4 10. N*d4 a6 11. b3 Qc7 12. Bb2 Bd6 13. h3 O-O 14. Bd3
e5 15. Nf5 e4 16. N*d6\protect\end{chess} }

White sensibly takes the two bishops.

{\bf\protect\begin{chess} 16.: Q*d6 17. Be2 Qe7 18. c4 Rd8 19. Qc1 Bf5 20. Qf4\protect\end{chess}}



\board{r* r *k*}
{*p* qppp}
{p* * n *}
{* * *b* }
{ *P*pQ *}
{*P* * *P}
{PB *BPP*}
{R * *RK }
$$\showboard$$


 Black must make a concession - in the event, I buried the bishop on g6.
White's two bishops and queen's side majority win the game.

{\bf\protect\begin{chess} 20.:  Bg6 21. Rfd1 R*d1+ 22. R*d1 Rd8 23. Qe5 Re8 24. Q*e7 R*e7 25. b4 Rd7
26. R*d7 N*d7 27. c5 Kf8 28. c6 b*c6 29. B*a6 f6 30. Bd4 Bf7 31. a4 Bb3 32.
a5\protect\end{chess}}





\board{ * * k *}
{* *n* pp}
{B*p* p *}
{P * * * }
{ P Bp* *}
{*b* * *P}
{ * * PP*}
{* * * K }
$$\showboard$$


{\bf   1-0}

It's worth dwelling on this for a moment.  Material is equal, and Black
can think about getting his own majority moving, but its all too late.  The two
bishops cover all the key squares, and Black can hardly stop the advance of the
a-pawn.



\section{
Bishops:
two bishops in open middlegame
}
This is the other easy case: the bishops usually chop up the opposition.

\paragraph{
Nunn
- Tal (Wijk Ann Zee, 1982)
}
{\bf\protect\begin{chess} 1. e4 c5 2. Nf3 e6 3. d4 c*d4 4. N*d4 Nc6 5. Nc3 a6 6. g3 Qc7 7. Bg2 Nf6 8.
O-O h6 9. Nb3 Be7 10. a4 d6 11. f4 O-O 12. g4 Bd7 13. h4 b5 14. g5 Nh7 15. Be3
b4 16. Ne2 d5 17. e*d5 e*d5 18. Q*d5 Rac8 19. a5 Nb8 20. Ned4 Bg4 21. Rae1 Rfd8
22. Qe4 Re8 23. Bf2 Bd7 24. Qd5 Qd6\protect\end{chess}}



\board{ nr*r*k*}
{* *bbppn}
{p* q * p}
{P *Q* P }
{ p N P P}
{*N* * * }
{ PP* BB*}
{* * RRK }
$$\showboard$$


Here is an instructive moment from the Nunn/Griffiths book.  White has many
advantages, including an extra pawn.  

{\bf\protect\begin{chess} 25. Nf5!\protect\end{chess} }

{\em ``White is still in no hurry to exchange queens: he permits his
opponent the option of\protect\begin{chess} 25.: B*f5 26 Q*f5\protect\end{chess} instead of the game continuation.
EITHER WAY HIS BISHOP-PAIR WILL DOMINATE THE BOARD.  But he is also returning
the extra pawn: possibly as instructive a piece of Grandmaster thinking as
anything that has gone previously.  The point is not that the variations are
difficult to calculate, but that Nunn is thinking boldly; dynamically.  Time
and again we see how his thinking is the reverse of a weaker player.  It is
not, `If I play Nf5 I shall lose a pawn; I will only do that as a last resort';
but rather, `I can simplify the position by Nf5 and continue to generate
powerful threats; it would be a miracle if Black could get away with
...Rxc2"}

{\bf\protect\begin{chess} 25.: Q*d5 26. N*e7+ R*e7 27. B*d5 R*e1 28. R*e1 R*c2 29. Re7\protect\end{chess} }

It's all starting to clear up nicely.

{\bf\protect\begin{chess} 29.: Bc6 30. B*f7+ Kf8 31. Rc7 h*g5 32. Bc5+\protect\end{chess} 1-0}






\section{
Bishops:
two bishops in a semi-open or closed middlegame
}
This is not so easy.  The side with the two bishops must open lines, but if it
were easily possible, the Nimzo-Indian would not be a viable defence..

Here are two fine examples where the Bishops win, one more open, one more closed.

\subsection{
Bronstein
D - Golombek H (Moscow)    [E43] 1956
}
{\bf\protect\begin{chess} 1. d4 Nf6 2. c4 e6 3. Nc3 Bb4 4. Nf3 b6 5. e3 Bb7 6. Bd3 Ne4 7. O-O B*c3 8.
b*c3 O-O 9. Ne1 f5 10. f3 Nf6 11. a4 Nc6 12. e4 f*e4 13. f*e4 e5 14. Bg5 Qe7
15. Nc2 Qd6\protect\end{chess}}



\board{r* * rk*}
{pbpp* pp}
{ pnq n *}
{* * p B }
{P*PPP* *}
{* PB* * }
{ *N* *PP}
{R *Q*RK }
$$\showboard$$


Black is doing his best to get White to play d\protect\begin{chess}4-d5,\protect\end{chess} when as well gaining the
square c5, Black would expect the blocked pawn formation to favour the Knights.
White finds an interesting way of resisting the encouragement. 

{\bf\protect\begin{chess} 16. Bh4 Rae8 17. Bg3 Qe7 18. Ne3 d6\protect\end{chess} [}{\em\protect\begin{chess} 18.:  e*d4 19. Nf5\protect\end{chess}}{\bf ]\protect\begin{chess} 19.
Bh4 Nd8 20. Nd5\protect\end{chess}}



\board{ * nrrk*}
{pbp q pp}
{ p p n *}
{* *Np * }
{P*PPP* B}
{* PB* * }
{ * * *PP}
{R *Q*RK }
$$\showboard$$


This leap into the (still) empty d5 point provokes Black into giving up the
remaining Bishop. It should not be supposed that Golombek was unaware of the
dangers in this, but considered it relatively best, given the pressure on f6.
{\bf\protect\begin{chess} 20.:  B*d5 21. c*d5 c6 22. Qb3 Kh8 23. Rae1 h6 24. Qa3 g5 25. Bg3 Nd7 26.
d*c6 N*c6 27. Bb5\protect\end{chess}}



\board{ * *rr k}
{p *nq * }
{ pnp * p}
{*B* p p }
{P* PP* *}
{Q P * B }
{ * * *PP}
{* * RRK }
$$\showboard$$


After the pins on the King's-side have finally been disposed of, White starts
up in the same trade on the Queen's-side! 

{\bf\protect\begin{chess} 27.:  R*f1+ 28. R*f1 Ncb8\protect\end{chess} }

this decentralising move doesn't look right 

{\bf\protect\begin{chess} 29. Bc4 Rf8\protect\end{chess}}



\board{ n * r k}
{p *nq * }
{ p p * p}
{* * p p }
{P*BPP* *}
{Q P * B }
{ * * *PP}
{* * *RK }
$$\showboard$$


Black's position now falls apart 

{\bf\protect\begin{chess} 30. R*f8+ Q*f8 31. d*e5 Nc5 32. e*d6 N*e4\protect\end{chess} }

{\em [Have the Knights finally secured a defence?] }

{\bf\protect\begin{chess} 33. d7\protect\end{chess} !\protect\begin{chess} 33.:  Nc5\protect\end{chess} }

{\em [\protect\begin{chess}33.:  Q*a3 34. d8=Q+ Kg7 35. Qg8+ Kf6 36. Qf7\#\protect\end{chess}] }

{\bf\protect\begin{chess} 34. Be5+ Kh7 35. Bd3+\protect\end{chess}}



\board{ n * q *}
{p *P* *k}
{ p * * p}
{* n B p }
{P* * * *}
{Q PB* * }
{ * * *PP}
{* * * K }
$$\showboard$$


Golombek comments that these weren't mere Bishops, but Archbishops! 1-0


\subsection{
Rubinstein
- Nimzovitch (Berlin, 1928)
}
{\bf\protect\begin{chess} 1. d4 Nf6 2. c4 e6 3. Nc3 Bb4 4. Qc2 d6 5. e3 c5 6. Bd3 Nc6 7. Nge2 e5 8. d5
B*c3+\protect\end{chess} }

Normally in the Nimzo-Indian Defence, Black hopes to double the c-pawns
to give a target for attack in the event that White disappears off to the
King's side.  Not here, so Black can only hope to gum up the game for his
knights.

{\bf\protect\begin{chess} 9. Q*c3 Ne7 10. Qc2 O-O 11. O-O Ng6 12. Ng3 Re8 13. f3 Bd7 14. Bd2 a6 15. h3
b5 16. b3 Qb6 17. Kh2 a5 18. Rab1 b4\protect\end{chess}}



\board{r* *r*k*}
{* *b*ppp}
{ q p nn*}
{p pPp * }
{ pP* * *}
{*P*BPPNP}
{P*QB *PK}
{*R* *R* }
$$\showboard$$


White's bishops are well-placed for attack and defence.  The knights don't seem
to know where to go next to be useful.

White' s next move forces open line for the bishops.

{\bf\protect\begin{chess} 19. f4 e*f4 20. e*f4 Nf8 21. Bc1 Qd8 22. Qf2 a4 23. Bb2 Ng6 24. Rbd1 a*b3
25. a*b3 Ra7 26. Rde1 R*e1 27. R*e1 Nf8\protect\end{chess}}





\board{ * q nk*}
{r *b*ppp}
{ * p n *}
{* pP* * }
{ pP* P *}
{*P*B* NP}
{ B * QPK}
{* * R * }
$$\showboard$$


White's next move may look odd, but the Nf6 is Black's best defensive piece.
White can take it off, then bring his knoght into play on e4.  Black will be
forced to make entry points for White.

{\bf\protect\begin{chess} 28. B*f6 Q*f6 29. Ne4 Qh6 30. f5 Ra3 31. Rb1 Ra6 32. g4 f6 33. Kg3 Bc8 34.
Re1 Bb7 35. Qe2 Nd7\protect\end{chess}}





\board{ * * *k*}
{*b*n* pp}
{r* p p q}
{* pP*P* }
{ pP*N*P*}
{*P*B* KP}
{ * *Q* *}
{* * R * }
$$\showboard$$


White's forces are ideally placed, and Black's are scattered.  The following
combinational finish should come as no surprise. 

{\bf\protect\begin{chess} 36. N*d6 R*d6 37. Qe8+ Nf8 38. Re7 g6 39. Qf7+ Kh8 40. Re8 Rd8 41. Q*f6+ Kg8
42. Qe6+ Kg7 43. f6+\protect\end{chess} 1-0}



\section{
The
two bishops in a semi-open endgame
}
And this is the hardest case, which Paulsen and Steinitz perfected.  The side
with the two bishops must deny the knights any stable outposts while advancing
on both sides of the board.

\subsection{
[Event
``Two Bishops?"][Site ""][Date ``1873.??.??"][Round "?"]
[White
``Rosenthal"][Black ``Steinitz "][Result ``0-1"]
}
{\bf\protect\begin{chess} 1.e4 e5 2.Nc3 Nc6 3.Nf3 g6 4.d4 e*d4 5.N*d4 Bg7 6.Be3 Nge7 7.Bc4 d6 8.O-O
O-O 9.f4 Na5 10.Bd3 d5 11.e*d5 N*d5 12.N*d5 Q*d5 13.c3 Rd8 14.Qc2 Nc4 15.B*c4
Q*c4 16.Qf2 c5 17.Nf3 b6 18.Ne5 Qe6 19.Qf3 Ba6 20.Rfe1 f6 21.Ng4 h5 22.Nf2 Qf7\protect\end{chess}
}

The poor knight isn't really sparkling.



\board{r* r *k*}
{p * *qb }
{bp * pp*}
{* p * *p}
{ * * P *}
{* P BQ* }
{PP * NPP}
{R * R K }
$$\showboard$$


{\bf\protect\begin{chess} 23.f5 g5 24.Rad1 Bb7 25.Qg3 Rd5 26.R*d5 Q*d5 27.Rd1 Q*f5 28.Qc7 Bd5 29.b3
Re8 30.c4 Bf7 31.Bc1 Re2 32.Rf1 Qc2 33.Qg3 Q*a2\protect\end{chess} 0-1}



\subsection{
Englisch-Steinitz}
{\bf\protect\begin{chess} 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bb5 g6 4.d4 e*d4 5.N*d4 Bg7 6.Be3 Nf6 7.Nc3 O-O 8.O-O
Ne7 9.Qd2 d5 10.e*d5 Ne*d5 11.N*d5 Q*d5 12.Be2 Ng4 13.B*g4 B*g4 14.Nb3 Q*d2
15.N*d2 Rad8 16.c3 Rfe8 17.Nb3 b6 18.h3 Be6 19.Rfd1 c5\protect\end{chess} }

(squashing White's knight out of the game)



\board{ * rr*k*}
{p * *pbp}
{ p *b*p*}
{* p * * }
{ * * * *}
{*NP B *P}
{PP * PP*}
{R *R* K }
$$\showboard$$


{\bf\protect\begin{chess} 20.Bg5 f6 21.Bf4 Kf7 22.f3 g5 23.R*d8 R*d8 24.Be3 h6 25.Re1 f5 26.f4 Bf6
27.g3 a5 28.Nc1 a4 29.a3 Bc4 30.Kf2 g*f4 31.B*f4 Bg5 32.B*g5 h*g5 33.Ke3 Kf6
34.h4 g*h4 35.g*h4 Re8+ 36.Kf2 R*e1 37.K*e1 Ke5 38.Ne2 B*e2 39.K*e2 Kf4 40.c4
Kg4 41.Ke3 f4+\protect\end{chess} {!}\protect\begin{chess} 42.Ke4 f3 43.Ke3 Kg3\protect\end{chess} {0-1 }}






\end{document}