In any situation where a pawn can take down a king, the king can take down the pawn first. The pawn has to be moved into position to take the king, since the king legally can't move into position to be taken by a pawn. Kings are very powerful late game because of their consistency. Unlike any other piece, since you lose otherwise, you can count on having it be there. Most "fundamental" endgames use the king offensively and its considered flawed play to leave the king running in the endgame.
rockthatlookslikeafacerock

deoxyrebornicleic:

rockthatlookslikeafacerock:

mx-bones-deactivated20160831:

Yes but you’re missing the point which is that the king strictly only moves one space, no matter what, while a pawn does move once but if theres someone on the two diagonal spaces in front, they CAN eat em. King can’t and risks getting eaten.

Do ya see my point here

the king can take things on diagonals though? in most late game instances after your pawn structure has been eaten, a king is much more versitile, since it can always move forewards and backwards.

a pawn can get upgraded :y

Also a king can’t take a pawn if it would put him in check, like if two pawns were diagonal from each other, thus placing king in a situation where taking one pawn would cause him to be defeated by a second pawn.

Reblogged 4 years ago from mx-bones-deactivated20160831 (Originally from mx-bones-deactivated20160831)
86 notes
  1. stophelping reblogged this from timeforanedventure and added:
    The big difference between a pawn and a king is that a king can’t be put at risk. A king needs to avoid being threatened...
  2. darael reblogged this from timeforanedventure and added:
    Obvious counterexample to the initial assertion is obvious though: A king cannot move into check, so if the position...
  3. timeforanedventure reblogged this from rockthatlookslikeafacerock