The first in a series of videos covering what every chess player should know. This video teaches the rule of the square and how to use it in a King and Pawn vs King endgame.
The square extends from the position of the pawn (after it moves) to the eighth rank, and it extends from the position of the pawn towards the enemy king by the same amount.
Okay, move 2 out to start, then one wider for each move it'd take to reach end, so usually it's one quarter of the bored, plies one by one, if that makes sense.
With similar steps to the square of promotion it's a no go. Now imagine one check by a knight and you placed it on purpose in the right spot. Maybe you let the king take your knight and it's a planned, extra step.
Please forgive my question if it's a dumb one but I'm a self taught noob. Here 2:30 you've drawn a square which is 5 x 5 little squares, starting from the position where the pawn would end. But you could also have drawn a square of 4 x 4 !? isn't it ? It would still be a square and yet it would change the end result. So how do we know what would be the proper size of the square ?
Hi Ashish, later on in this series I cover these openings: The Ruy Lopez, the Italian game, and the Queen's gambit. I just finished the Chess Basics series, and I'm about to start a new series, Opening Basics, where I will cover additional openings.
This is not a clean and clear explanation. Some would say in the 2nd example he could go over 1 square with the line. How many “squares” equal a square?
@@JimsChessChannel so it can be any size, given that the square must be part of the position the pawn will take and the last row where it will be promoted.
@@yamkelabotman1709 In any specific position, the size of the square is determined by the location the pawn will take and the location where it will queen. If the position of the pawn is different, the size of the square will be different. That's what I meant when I said it works for all size squares.
Chinmay Kishore Hi Chinmay, I'm using a program called ChessBase Light 2009 for the GUI. It used to be available from the ChessBase web site, but the last time I looked it was no longer available. I'm also using StockFish 5 as the chess engine, and Fritz 12 for the opening database. In earlier videos, I used Houdini 1.5a as the chess engine.
I currently use Fritz 15 and StockFish 7 (I was using older software when I made this video). Here's a video where I talk about my setup: ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-734roHSVg-U.html
I can see why Magnus didn't get this as a kid. I mean what is the application when you can just simply calculate ahead. Moreover, while it is easy apply the rule, the rule itself is not really self-explained, i.e. the fundamentals behind it.
@@JimsChessChannel I just deleted my own comment because i finally get it. If it is three squares away from the queening square then the square will be 3x3 and the king must enter that square. However, I think it is far easier to simply count how many squares it takes to queen and how many squares it takes the king to reach the queening square, if those are the same number the king will catch the pawn but one short and he will not.
In height, the square extends from the location of the pawn to the location where it would queen. In width, the square extends from the location of the pawn toward the side where the king is. Watch the video with this in mind and it should all be clear.
@@sanekabc The width of the square is the same in both cases. It width of the square only depends on the location of the pawn. The question is whether the king can step inside the square. In the first case the answer is no, and in the second the answer is yes.
@@sanekabc okay I was confused too but then I realized my mistake (and yours too). It’s the rule of the “square” so the “width” of the square always equals the “height” or number of ranks forward your pawn would move to reach the back rank. If you move any more files over than you did ranks forward - in order to reach the same file as the king - then you will sometimes end up with rectangles lol. This is a great little rule!
I find it hard to believe that Carlsen, with all his brilliancy and deep understanding of Chess, honestly failed to understand this rule as he claimed on that video where he was supposed to teach us this rule. It seems to me pretty straightforward after hearing this explanation. Was it really that hard to grasp for him??
Its because he was already calculating the moves,so he doesn't need it.This rule is supposed to make it easier for us to calcitae moves but he just use his raw brain power to calculate moves.
