A solution paradox?

Having worked through a number of combinations exercises in the back of my old informants, as well as a large number of tactics problems from various books, I'm noticing what would seem to be a solution paradox. Endgame exercise solutions with only a few pieces and pawns for each side frequently require far more moves to solve than even the most complex middlegame tactics exercises with most of the pieces on the board. One would think it would be the other way around.

Thoughts?

@mchill said
Having worked through a number of combinations exercises in the back of my old informants, as well as a large number of tactics problems from various books, I'm noticing what would seem to be a solution paradox. Endgame exercise solutions with only a few pieces and pawns for each side frequently require far more moves to solve than even the most complex middlegame tactics exer ...[text shortened]... ith most of the pieces on the board. One would think it would be the other way around.

Thoughts?

In endgames the aim is normally checkmating, which is a multi move solution routinekly especially if pawn races are involved.

Middle games are looking for fast checkamting or for winning a good advantage. If the latter would be required to be played out (but there are so many options) then the solution would take probably more moves than the typical endgame study

@ponderable said
In endgames the aim is normally checkmating, which is a multi move solution routinekly especially if pawn races are involved.

Middle games are looking for fast checkamting or for winning a good advantage. If the latter would be required to be played out (but there are so many options) then the solution would take probably more moves than the typical endgame study

Isn't the analysis board good for that?

Not if you're playing a 2000+ opponent. The aim is to stay alive as long as possible.