Thanks Dennis! I really enjoyed this video. While most of us tend to prefer bishops to knights in this sort of endgame, it was really interesting seeing how little things (like the e5 pawn making the bishop "bad" or finding ways to use the knight to keep the bishop tied down) could really tip the balance one way or the other. Also, while the knight was playing defense mostly, it was defending a relatively small area in the center where it could threaten things on the wings without actually going there, while the bishop had to zip back around a larger perimeter trying to find something to attack which somewhat neutralized its mobility.

All in all a very interesting presentation. Thanks again!

Ah, man! I'm lazy and you want me to work? Okay, since in watching the first part there were some spots I thought of moves different than played I'll set it up and see if I can find the improvements, and more importantly if my thoughts were correct. I'll be back later when I find something (or give up and watch the rest of the video).

Note: For those who want to solve this one, pick up at 10:30 where I guess Dennis will give away the answer.

BTW, Dennis, by listening to your voice and the speed you went through the first part I knew that something was different with this one - I like this approach.

Dennis, thanks for such a wonderful example! I got most of your ideas but had some questions. I have included my thoughts from your test position (so that I could compare my thoughts to yours) but I also have a couple comments which I have preceded with two asterisks **.

First of all, if I were playing white I don't think that I'd trade off all the heavy pieces. For some reason I feel better about things after 17.Qe3 instead of trading the queens (I don't have a lot of faith in the ending N vs B, but a N&Q vs B&Q I do feel good about).

I thought that 21.b4 would hold the balance for White, either on this move or the next few opportunities with the idea of Nb2.

I had no faith in White's 23.Kd3, it just made no sense to me, where's the king going? I guess it's practical in some way, but b4 is still calling me.

Instead of trading on b5, I thought b4 (again, with b4) made more sense, to lock up the queenside.
**I don't recall if you mentioned this in the video so I cannot say if this is a viable concept.

27.Ng4 was another move that I didn't understand. I thought the knight looked rather nice on e3 and that h4 seemed like a more practical choice (**you suggested Ke2 which seems fine as well, you are certainly more patient than I am ).

For Black I thought that 29...h4 was a more aggressive approach than ...Kf6 - the king really can't get into the king side.

31.g4 is an idea that might be worth a shot.
**Again, I don't recall if you mentioned this or not.

**In your variation at move 34 where White played a5 you mentioned playing 34.ef5+ gf5, 35.a5 and then you had Black advance the e-pawn. If I were playing Black I don't think I would want to do this (the old motto in endgames, if you have the edge, be patient and your opponent will slip up [yes, I just said that, only 'cause others told me to think this way ]). I just don't think that I'd want to clarify the position so easily. Not that Black is better either way, just trying to press every angle, on and off the board.

35.b4 was again, IMO, worth a look. The bishop either has to stay on the g1-a7 diagonal or go B(c5)d6-c7-b6 if White advances the pawn, in the meanwhile White can reposition his knight via a1-b3 then a5 (and maybe even c5 if the opportunity arrives), and I think that White is certainly no worse here.

I think that Black's 35th move was a mistake that gives White unnecessary chances after 36.b4 with the idea that c5 is difficult for Black to get in with any success, i.e., 36.b4 Ba7, 37.Ne1 and if 37...c5, 38.bc5+ Bc5 I think the White king can get close enough to stop the b-pawn and the knight is freed up to attempt to harass Black's own pawns, maybe the knight can get to d5 and dominate events via N-d3-b4-d5, or at worst just hold back with the king and ask Black - 'whaddaya gonna do?'.

The last thing that I was interested in was at position after 38...Bd6, I feel that g3 gives White very good chances and seems embarrassing to Black, for example; 39.g3 fg3, 40.f4 ef4, 41.e5 and through a temporary sacrifice, the knight jumps to life. I have not evaluated this fully (**you were way more detailed in your analysis, thank you), its more an instinct that this has to be good for White, how does Black defend his g-pawn and far advanced K-side wanderers? After the game continuation I think Black is fully in the drivers seat.

**Again, thank you for this little quiz. I remember studying a remarkably similar game of mine with Jim Blackwood (an interesting and very strong correspondence player), he spotted a win for me almost instantly whereas I had to go home and work for several hours and still could not find the win, when Jim pointed out the correct path a light-bulb went off in my head and I never forgot that lesson. This one will stick in my mind as well.

You tricked me! In the Beginning I was like: Why not b4? But then I just figured oh well he knows better. I guess I'm easily tricked. I guess this means I lack confidence.

Gosh and I really dislike working. Good thing that chess is only about fun for me, and no job. I would hate it to be forced into actually working at chess. I Know this means I will never get to be really good at chess, but then again - I dont have to work.

In balance it means: I can beat almost anybody that doesn't take chess seriously. Which is not very ambitious. But oh well. Recently I played with some guy at work (I am his boss) and I noticed, that he didn't want me to loose (you know: don't make your boss feel bad). On the other hand he didn't want to look stupid (you know, don't let your boss think you're stupid). He started off shy and noticed that if he wasn't going to think hard he was going to be crushed. I won in twenty-something moves. The next game he started off the best he could, and I lost the game. Later I learned, that he almost managed to be an FM.

I kind of dislike the guy now. Not because I lost, but because he was so arrogant the first game around.

Any thoughts on this?

I like the idea of doing a video just on an endgame, there is more than enough material. I always try to learn some positional lessons from analyzing such positions but it's not always easy to separate where you can draw general rules and what is specific to the problems of the position.

i like endgames with knight + multiple pawns vs bishop vs multiple pawns, but i thought the side with the knight would have a better chance to win since it can go to any square on the board, but bishop can only go to 32 squares.

thechesser: It always depends on specifics, but overall the stats favor bishops. The knight's ability to reach to all 64 squares counts for something, but so does the ability of the bishop to cross the board in a single move!

Faber123: Interesting story! I wouldn't be so hard on the guy - I'm sure you expect to beat most opponents you come across in a "civilian" context, so if he did take you a little too lightly at first you probably shouldn't take it personally. Besides, that whole boss-underling dynamic means you should probably try extra-hard not to hold the game against him. Be glad you have a nice, strong opponent nearby. (Just make sure you don't get your boss made at you!)

hahaha faber, that's pretty cold blooded if you dislike him because he went easy on you!!

glad you're not MY boss!!!

great as always Dennis...