03 Aug 23
3 edits
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?
03 Aug 23
@mchill saidIn endgames the aim is normally checkmating, which is a multi move solution routinekly especially if pawn races are involved.
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?
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
22 Aug 23
1 edit
@ponderable saidIsn't the analysis board good for that?
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
Not if you're playing a 2000+ opponent. The aim is to stay alive as long as possible.