Two Knights Endgame - History

History

The fact that two knights can sometimes win against one or more pawns was known at least as early as 1780, when Chapsis 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 Chapsis 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 Chapsis 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 – Troitzky 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).

Horwitz & Kling, 1851
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 move checkmates in six moves Horwitz & Kling, 1851
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 move wins Pollock vs. Showalter, c. 1890
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 move. Pollock refused to continue and agreed to a draw six moves later, but White has a winning position (Troitzky 2006:197).

Read more about this topic:  Two Knights Endgame

Famous quotes containing the word history:

    A people without history
    Is not redeemed from time, for history is a pattern
    Of timeless moments.
    —T.S. (Thomas Stearns)

    In all history no class has been enfranchised without some selfish motive underlying. If to-day we could prove to Republicans or Democrats that every woman would vote for their party, we should be enfranchised.
    Carrie Chapman Catt (1859–1947)