Why King’s Indian players hate playing endgames


The King’s Indian Defense is reputed to be played by  jugadores  de ajedrez who would rather win or go down in flames in the middle game than have to play a long boring endgame. The reason this rumor/fact is held to be true is that the second player puts his dark squared Bishop on a dark square and then proceeds to place his center pawns and some of his flank pawns on dark squares hoping for landing a hay maker before the endgame comes to fore.

The diagrammed position that you see was a Kings Indian played at the ICC where White made it to the endgame with a superior minor piece ending. White’s Knight at e4 is on a stop square that mechanically prevents the isolated e5 pawn from advancing. White’s rook at a1 controls one of the two open files on the chess board. Black’s pawns are more disbursed, owning three pawn islands to  White’s two. Chess is rich in terminology to describe its infinitely varying positions. Just ask Hans Kmoch. This would require a seance.

The position is not dead lost for Black if he can find play against the White pawns at b4 and c5 which are fixed on dark squares. Maybe Bd8 preparing b6 opening dark squared diagonals is a plan. However the horse can hop into d6 by the principle of squares released.

Kings Indian Defense End  Game
Kings Indian Defense End Game

For a nice illustration of the typical King’s Indian player desire for an aggressive, uncompromising, middle game attack, view the dismantling of ChessIsMyWife playing at ICC. His flank attack overtures were violently rebuffed by a brutal piece sacrifice for a pawn roller in the center.


1 comment on “Why King’s Indian players hate playing endgamesAdd yours →

  1. My handle at ICC describes “the logic” of a chess game… I have beaten many logical nerd types who are great in school but suck at chess. This has nothing to do with the KI post other than it was played at ICC.

Leave a Reply