Which Way To Go With The King (a pawn endgame)

I was watching the Top Rated Games on Lichess TV recently. Most of what appears there are bullet games: not my favourite time control. But sometimes, inside all the speed and chaos, you find fascinating moments worth pausing on. This game produced what I believe to be one such moment: after 36.Kxe1, the queens and rooks are gone, and the board is reduced to a pure pawn endgame. Black is up a pawn, but the question is: where should the king go?

At first glance, this seems simple: “up a pawn in the endgame, so let's centralise the king.” That’s the mantra we’ve all internalised. March it to d5, play ...e4, and try to break through. That’s the logical, almost mechanical instinct. But here lies the beauty of pawn endings: the most natural plan is actually the wrong one.

---

The Centralising Plan: Tempting but Insufficient

If Black continues with ...Kd6, White calmly meets it with Kf2–Ke2. and the moment Black tries to come in with Kd5, White meets it with 38.Ke3, and it turns out Black cannot make progress, as e4 fails to Kf4, and Black loses the e-pawn, which results in a draw. And if black chooses to play ...e4 earlier, say on move 37, White just waits with Ke2-d2 or f2. Whenever Black tries to come closer with ...Ke5, White replies with Ke3, regaining the opposition. Suddenly, the entire idea collapses — the king is locked out, and Black can’t penetrate.
Now, with careless play, things can even turn against Black. For example, if Black stubbornly tries to switch plans too late: giving up the e-pawn to chase White’s c3-pawn, White wins the race after Kc5 Kxe4 Kb5 Kd5!, securing the c4-pawn:

I'd like to clarify, that this is an absolutely extreme scenario, and one that was a result of a very careless play by Black but it shows something important: in pawn endgames, assuming “any plan wins” can cost you the full point.
That said, it’s important to stress: the centralising plan obviously doesn’t immediately lose. With accurate play, Black can still salvage the win by eventually changing course, but only if they recognise on time that the central breakthrough is sterile. It’s a psychological trap: you feel that centralisation must be right, but here it leads to nothing but stagnation.

---

The Kingside Plan: Exploiting the Weak Dark Squares

The winning method is more ambitious: march the king via Kf8–g7–h6–g5. Why is this so much stronger? Because on the kingside, Black can use both the king and the e-pawn to infiltrate on the dark squares.
Several scenarios illustrate the dominance:

• If White is in time to block with Kh4, Black pushes ...e4!, forcing the king back. Then Kg5 follows, and even sacrificing the e-pawn is enough (in case of Kh3 Kg5 Kg3 e3 Kf3 e2 Kxe2 Kxg4): Black’s king picks up the f- and g-pawns, and the queenside race is hopeless for White.
• If White keeps the king on the third rank, Black still wins: after Kg5, Black chooses whether to push ...e4 supported by the king, or invade directly with Kf4/Kh4, depending on White’s placement. In all cases, the g- and f-pawns fall, and the rest is technique as even if White manages to grab the c4-pawn, the c-passer is much slower.

The key difference? On the kingside, Black is combining threats: infiltration on dark squares, zugzwang setups, and the possibility of sacrificing the e-pawn for White’s kingside majority. By contrast, the central plan relies entirely on ...e4 and opposition, which White can in fact neutralise.

---

Finding the Right Plan

So how do we find the right plan in such positions, especially in practical games where the clock is ticking? A few pointers:

1. Look at Pawn Structures, Not Habits. Centralising the king is a habit, but the pawn structure here makes the central break ineffective. Always ask: where are the weak squares? Where can my king actually penetrate?
2. Compare the Races. On the queenside, both sides are equally "fast". On the kingside, Black’s extra pawn plus the e-pawn push guarantees a winning race. The plan that creates zugzwang is usually superior.
3. Beware of Assumptions. “I’m up a pawn, therefore it’s winning” is the exact thought that can make you play carelessly. Many endgames are only winning if you pick the right route. Although in this case, if the player is strong enough, even not the most careful play will likely lead to a win, but noticing the kingside infiltration plan is very important.

This example is a model case: the side with the extra pawn must resist the natural centralisation instinct and instead find the infiltration squares: in this case, the dark squares on the kingside.

---

Psychology in Practice

I think It’s worth pausing to think about how this position plays out in real time. In a bullet game, 99% of players would immediately centralise the king without a second thought. It’s automatic: “extra pawn centralise push.” The instinct feels so natural that your brain barely registers the alternatives.
But in Rapid or Classical, discipline is required. This is exactly the kind of position where your thinking process must shift from rules to plans. Ask: what squares can my king actually reach, and what do I gain by going there?
The trap is psychological: when you’re a pawn up, you often relax, assuming that “any reasonable move wins.” That mindset can be fatal. In this game, the centralising plan isn’t necessarily a blunder on its own, but it drifts away from what really matters. If you notice too late that progress is impossible, you’re forced to change course under worse circumstances, or even risk throwing the game away entirely.
The practical lesson:

• In fast time controls, habits dominate, and that’s why most players would go central.
• In slower time controls, methodical players discipline themselves to question the obvious and search for the infiltration route. That’s what separates reliable endgame technique from casual intuition.

This is why studying such pawn endings, even those from bullet games, can be very valuable for players aiming to improve in Rapid and Classical.

---

Conclusion

This endgame shows why pawn endings are both feared and loved: one plan leads to stagnation (or worse), the other to a clean win. For players looking to improve their endgame play, the lesson is clear: don’t just follow general rules blindly, instead train your eye to spot where your king can really make progress.